Cultural Intelligence in International B2B Negotiations: An Exploratory Study on the Role of Intercultural Competencies

Sameh Skhiri; Imed Zaiem; Abu Elnasr Sobaih; Hussein Edrees

doi:10.36923/jicc.v25i3.1162

Open Access Article Intercultural Management

Sameh Skhiri ⁽¹⁾ , Imed Zaiem ⁽²⁾ , Abu Elnasr Sobaih ⁽³⁾ , Hussein Edrees ⁽⁴⁾

1. Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management of Nabeul, University of Carthage, Carthage, Tunisia

2. Department of Management, College of Business, Dar Al Uloom University, Saudi Arabia

3. Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia

4. Data Management and Decision Support Office, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia

https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v25i3.1162

Issue
Vol. 25 No. 3 (2025)

Submitted
2025 April 26

Accepted
2025 June 26

Published
2025 July 29

Keywords:

B2B Negotiation, Cultural Intelligence, Intercultural Competence, Intercultural Negotiation

Ask AI (Dimensions)

Download PDF

Abstract

The aim of this study is to explore the role of cultural intelligence in international business-to-business (B2B) negotiations involving culturally diverse dyads. While intercultural competencies have been widely studied, the specific contribution of cultural intelligence, viewed both as a form of intelligence and a practical competence, remains underexplored in negotiation contexts. This study addresses this gap by investigating how cultural intelligence is understood and applied by experienced negotiators in intercultural settings. A qualitative research design was adopted, involving semi-structured interviews with twenty international negotiation professionals from a range of nationalities and industries. Data were analyzed through a directed thematic content analysis, combining deductive and inductive approaches to identify recurring patterns and dimensions of cultural intelligence within negotiation practices. The findings reveal that cultural intelligence is composed of three core dimensions, metacognitive, cognitive, and behavioural, which together enhance the negotiator’s ability to adapt, communicate effectively, and build trust in culturally diverse contexts. Respondents emphasized the importance of open-mindedness, contextual knowledge, and flexible communication strategies as key components of successful negotiation outcomes. The study concludes that cultural intelligence is a critical competence for achieving effective and mutually beneficial outcomes in international negotiations. It offers practical implications for global business professionals, encouraging them to develop cultural intelligence through targeted training that fosters self-awareness, cultural understanding, and adaptive communication. By doing so, negotiators can better navigate intercultural complexities, avoid stereotyping, and contribute to more sustainable and cooperative business relationships.

Full text article

Generated from XML file

References

Adair, W. L., & Brett, J. M. (2004). Culture and negotiation processes. In Handbook of negotiation and culture (pp. 158–176). Google Scholar | WorldCat

Adair, W. L., & Brett, J. M. (2005). The negotiation dance: Time, culture, and behavioural sequences in negotiation. Organization Science, 16(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0102 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066197003003003 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Ahmad, I., & Mehmood, S. (2025). Rituals of Openness: Vulnerability Practices in Multidisciplinary Professional Settings Beyond Healthcare. Innovation Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 7(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.36923/ijsser.v7i1.297 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Andresen, M., & Bergdolt, F. (2017). A systematic literature review on the definitions of global mindset and cultural intelligence, merging two different research streams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1), 170–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1243568 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 3–15). Google Scholar | WorldCat

Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., & Rockstuhl, T. (2020). Cultural intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed., pp. 820–845). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108770422.035 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Ang, S., Rockstuhl, T., & Tan, M. L. (2015). Cultural intelligence and competencies. In International encyclopedia of the social and behavioural sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.25050-2 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation, and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 335–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Bardin, L. (2013). L'analyse de contenu. Presses Universitaires de France. https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.bard.2013.01 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Benetti, S., Ogliastri, E., & Caputo, A. (2021). Distributive/integrative negotiation strategies in cross-cultural contexts: A comparative study of the USA and Italy. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(5), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.47 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90005-2 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. S. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education. (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., Stevens, M., & Oddou, G. (2010). Defining the content domain of intercultural competence for global leaders. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 810–828. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011089107 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Cahya, P., & Semnani, D. (2024). Navigating cross-cultural communication in international business negotiations: Insights and strategies for effective negotiation outcomes. Kampret Journal, 3(2), 72–79. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W., & Mor, S. (2012). Collaborating across cultures: Cultural metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.009 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Dellech, D., & Debabi, M. (2017). Intercultural negotiation: The challenge of competing approaches and diversity of paradigms. Question(s) De Management, 19(4), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.3917/qdm.174.0067 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Earley, P. C. (2002). Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations: Moving forward with cultural intelligence. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24008-3 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: An analysis of individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804766005 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Engle, R., Elahee, M., & Tatoglu, E. (2013). Antecedents of problem-solving cross-cultural negotiation style: Some preliminary evidence. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2013.ap.00007 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Evrard, Y., Pras, B., Roux, E., & Desmet, P. (2009). Market: Fondements et méthodes de recherche en marketing (4th ed.). Dunod. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Folberg, J., Golann, D., Stipanowich, T. J., Kloppenberg, L. (2010). Resolving Disputes: Theory, Practice and Law. 2nd ed. [Hardcover], Aspen Publishers. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: A Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Gelfand, M. J., & Cai, D. A. (2004). Cultural structuring of the social context of negotiation. In M. J. Gelfand & J. M. Brett (Eds.), The handbook of negotiation and culture (pp. 238–257). Stanford University Press. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Groves, K. S., Feyerherm, A., & Gu, M. (2015). Examining cultural intelligence and cross-cultural negotiation effectiveness. Journal of Management Education, 39(2), 209–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562914543273 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Guicherd, C., Dampérat, M., & Jolibert, A. (2011). Asymétrie du pouvoir dans la négociation commerciale: Étude du pouvoir différentiel perçu et de la différentiation cognitive. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 26(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/076737011102600102 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Imahori, T. T., & Lanigan, M. L. (1989). Relational model of intercultural communication competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(89)90013-8 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.001 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Javidan, M., & Teagarden, M. B. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring global mindset. In W. H. Mobley, M. Li, & Y. Wang (Eds.), Advances in global leadership (Vol. 6, pp. 13–39). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2011)0000006005 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Kumar, R. (2004). Culture and emotions in intercultural negotiations: An overview. In M. J. Gelfand & J. M. Brett (Eds.), The handbook of negotiation and culture (pp. 95–113). Stanford University Press. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Leung, K., Ang, S., & Tan, M. L. (2014). Intercultural competence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 489–519. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091229 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Liu, M. (2015). Cultural Differences in Bargaining and Negotiation. In The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (eds C.R. Berger, M.E. Roloff, S.R. Wilson, J.P. Dillard, J. Caughlin and D. Solomon). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic124 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Lloyd, S. L., & Härtel, C. (2010). Intercultural competencies for culturally diverse work teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 845–875. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011089125 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence. *Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44*(6), 849–873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113492891 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Morris, M. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2004). Cultural differences and cognitive dynamics: Expanding the cognitive perspective on negotiation. In M. J. Gelfand & J. M. Brett (Eds.), The handbook of negotiation and culture (pp. 45–70). Stanford University Press. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Mucchielli, A. (1994). Les méthodes qualitatives. Presses Universitaires de France. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Rammutla, C. M. (2025). The Cultural Nature of Mourning In South African Black Families: A Systematic Review. Innovation Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 7(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.36923/ijsser.v7i1.276 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Salmon, E., Gelfand, M., Çelik, A., Kraus, S., Wilkenfeld, J., & Inman, M. (2013). Cultural contingencies of mediation: Effectiveness of mediator styles in intercultural disputes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(6), 887–909. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1870 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Sanchez-Burks, J., Nisbett, R. E., & Ybarra, O. (2000). Cultural styles, relational schemas, and prejudice against out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.174 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556383 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Sharma, N., & Hussain, D. (2017). Current status and future directions for cultural intelligence. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 46(2), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2016.1264444 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Shen, S. (2023). The influence of culture on international business negotiation. In X. Li, C. Yuan, & J. Kent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Economic Management and Green Development (pp. 1237–1245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-7826-5_118 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Souni, H. (2008). Knowing how to negotiate to sell better. Demos. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Transformational vs. transactional deployment of intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 9(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9010015 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Sternberg, R. J., Chowkase, A., Desmet, O., Karami, S., Lu, J., & Landy, J. (2021). Beyond transformational giftedness. Education Sciences, 11(5), 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050192 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Taras, V. (2020). Conceptualizing and measuring cultural intelligence: Important unanswered questions. European Journal of International Management, 14(2), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2020.105566 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Thomas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G. K., & Ekelund, B. (2008). Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595808091787 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14(4), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0984(200007/08)14:4 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS: The cultural intelligence scale. In Handbook on cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement and applications (pp. 16–38). Google Scholar | WorldCat

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983488 Google Scholar | Crossref | WorldCat

Wilbaut, M. (2010). Intercultural negotiation: Guide to preparing, conducting, and closing an international negotiation. Google Scholar | WorldCat

Authors

Sameh Skhiri

https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1200-8169

Imed Zaiem

https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5134-2294

Abu Elnasr Sobaih

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2730-689X

asobaih@kfu.edu.sa (Primary Contact)

Hussein Edrees

https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6268-6263

Author Biographies

Sameh Skhiri

Dr. Sameh Skhiri is a marketing scholar with over 20 years of academic experience. She holds a Ph.D. in Marketing from FSEG Tunis and currently teaches marketing and negotiation at the Faculty of Economics and Management of Nabeul, affiliated with the University of Carthage in Tunisia. Her research primarily focuses on B2B marketing, intercultural negotiation, and sustainable marketing. Committed to supervising students and developing applied marketing practices, she strives to bridge academic insights with the needs of the professional world.

Imed Zaiem

Professor Imed ZAIEM is a recognized expert in marketing with over 30 years of academic and professional experience. He holds a Ph.D. and Habilitation to Conduct Research from FSEG Tunis, and currently serves as Professor at the College of Business, Dar Al Uloom University in Saudi Arabia, after serving as Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Management of Nabeul (2018-2024). Author of more than 45 scientific publications in renowned international journals, his research focuses primarily on sustainable marketing, ecological consumer behavior, and marketing innovation. A recognized expert consultant, he has led numerous strategic studies for national and international organizations, while being an active member of several scientific associations and academic juries.

Abu Elnasr Sobaih

Prof. Dr. Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih is a Professor of Strategic Human Resources Management at the Management Department, College of Business Administration, and a consultant of Strategic Planning and Institutional Identity at King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia. Prof. Sobaih has obtained his postgraduate degree and PhD from Cardiff Met. University, Cardiff, UK, and have been a visiting scholar at Cardiff School of Management, Cardiff, UK, and Pamplin Business School, Virginia Tech University, Northern Virginia, USA. He has over 25 years of academic experience with industry experience and has published over 100 papers in top-ranked journals in Clarivate and Scopus. He is an academic editor at several international journals. His research focuses on Business Sustainability, Higher education sustainability, and contemporary issues in the hospitality and tourism industry.

Hussein Edrees

Dr. Hussein N. E. Edress, A highly proactive Statistics and Data Management Specialist with extensive expertise in advanced statistical analysis and institutional data management. With a strong background in transforming complex datasets into actionable insights, I support data-driven decision-making and strategic development across both academic and business environments. My work is centered on delivering high-impact analytical solutions that drive institutional performance, enhance operational efficiency, and enable long-term planning. I bring proven skills in statistical modeling, data visualization, and research methodologies, and a strong ability to generate accurate interpretations that lead to measurable, innovative outcomes.

Skhiri, S., Zaiem , I., Sobaih, A. E., & Edrees , H. (2025). Cultural Intelligence in International B2B Negotiations: An Exploratory Study on the Role of Intercultural Competencies. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 25(3), 36-48. https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v25i3.1162

Download Citation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This journal provides immediate and free open access to all its content and is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This means readers are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as proper attribution is given. This policy is consistent with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.

How to Cite

Download Citation

Funding data

Deanship of Scientific Research, King Khalid University
Grant numbers KFU250096
Dar Al Uloom University

Introduction

The contribution of intercultural skills to the effective management of cultural diversity is widely acknowledged across various domains of management sciences, particularly in areas such as intercultural leadership, expatriation, and the management of multicultural teams. Among these competencies, the ability to harness cultural richness, known as cultural intelligence, has become especially vital for international negotiators operating in multicultural contexts. While cultural differences between negotiators offer valuable opportunities to generate mutual benefits, they also pose significant risks, potentially escalating into conflicts or severe misunderstandings at the negotiation table (Liu, 2015). These differences influence the roles of negotiators, the nature of communication, mutual perceptions, preferences, and the negotiation styles employed (Benetti, Ogliastri, & Caputo, 2021). A failure to adjust to and understand new cultural environments often results in unsuccessful business negotiations.

Intercultural differences have long been a central challenge in negotiations involving parties from distinct national backgrounds (Imai & Gelfand, 2010), a challenge that has intensified in today's globalized economy and amid complex geopolitical developments. Cultural diversity exerts considerable influence on negotiation mindsets, patterns, and styles, making it essential for negotiators to develop a deep understanding of the cultural contexts in which they operate (Shen, 2023). Prior studies (Adair & Brett, 2005; Groves, Feyerherm, & Gu, 2015; Imai & Gelfand, 2010) have demonstrated that successful cross-cultural negotiation demands more than technical expertise; it requires an appreciation of cultural value systems and behavior patterns. Despite the clear relevance of cultural intelligence (CQ) as a foundational capability in such settings, there remains a surprising lack of empirical research addressing how this capability is developed and applied within negotiation contexts. Understanding why certain negotiations are more effective than others in culturally diverse environments thus continues to be a pressing concern for scholars and practitioners alike.

Given that standard attributional and perceptual frameworks may not apply in cross-cultural interactions, managers must acquire the ability to negotiate effectively across cultures. Hall (1976) argued that engaging with intercultural dynamics requires the abandonment of one's cultural assumptions, a perspective that paved the way for the conceptualization of cultural intelligence, also known as cultural quotient, introduced by Earley (2002). Originally rooted in psychology, CQ is defined as the capacity to adapt effectively when interacting with people or navigating situations embedded in unfamiliar cultural contexts (Sternberg, 2021). While it shares characteristics with other forms of intelligence, such as emotional and social intelligence, cultural intelligence is distinct in its specific relevance to managing cultural diversity (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). Notably, it has demonstrated superior predictive power in determining performance outcomes in intercultural settings (Rockstuhl, Seiler, Ang, Van Dyne, & Annen, 2011). The emphasis of cultural intelligence is not merely on identifying cultural differences, but on understanding how to bridge them. As a result, scholars of intercultural effectiveness have increasingly recognized CQ as a particularly promising competence (Leung, Ang, & Tan, 2014; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2013). This growing interest has not only advanced theoretical discussions but has also produced meaningful practical implications.

Despite its originality as both a form of intelligence and a distinct intercultural competence, research on cultural intelligence in the context of international commercial negotiations remains underdeveloped (Imai & Gelfand, 2010). To address this important conceptual gap, the present study explores how cultural intelligence is understood and applied by experienced international negotiators. We conducted a qualitative investigation to gain deeper insight into the significance of CQ from the perspective of practitioners who engage in cross-cultural B2B negotiations. Given the inherently multidimensional nature of this competence, encompassing metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral dimensions, its application is particularly relevant in situations where negotiators must overcome cultural barriers and work toward mutually beneficial outcomes. This approach aligns with the framework of integrative or reasoned negotiation, as proposed by Fisher, Ury, and Patton (2011), in which collaboration and joint problem-solving are prioritized. Under such circumstances, cultural intelligence becomes a vital tool for removing obstacles, bridging differences, and fostering productive, trust-based exchanges (Imai & Gelfand, 2010).

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: the next section presents a comprehensive literature review covering negotiation theory, intercultural skills, and cultural intelligence. This is followed by a detailed account of our qualitative research methodology and findings. The paper concludes with a discussion of the theoretical and managerial implications, followed by limitations and directions for future research.

Literature Review

Definition Of Cultural Negotiation, Cultural Intelligence, And Cultural Competencies

This study revolves around three central constructs: cultural negotiation, cultural intelligence, and cultural competencies. In this section, each concept is defined before being explored in greater depth. Intercultural negotiation refers to any negotiation that occurs in a context where individuals from different cultures interact, allowing their respective cultural backgrounds to influence both the negotiation process and its outcomes (Dellech & Debabi, 2017). Cultural intelligence (CQ) is defined as “the ability to interact effectively in environments characterized by high cultural complexity. In order to interact effectively in intercultural environments, in particular, certain cognitive, motivational, and behavioural characteristics are necessary” (Andresen & Bergdolt, 2017, p. 185).

Meanwhile, intercultural competencies are conceptualized as a set of personal characteristics that determine an individual’s potential to function effectively in intercultural situations (Ang, Ng, & Rockstuhl, 2020). In essence, cultural competencies encompass the ability to engage with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds and require a combination of skills, attitudes, and ethical principles. This research primarily focuses on intercultural skills, which reflect an individual’s awareness and knowledge of different cultures. However, as suggested in the definition above, cultural intelligence extends beyond knowledge and awareness by emphasizing adaptability, behavioral adjustment, and strategic action in intercultural interactions. The following sections examine these variables in greater detail.

Intercultural Negotiation

Negotiation is inherently a complex process, as the involved parties often have divergent goals, priorities, and interests, and may adopt differing communication styles (Engle, Elahee & Tatoglu, 2013). This complexity is heightened in intercultural settings, where negotiators are less likely to share common interpretive frameworks (Morris & Gelfand, 2004), possess similar constructions of the social context (Gelfand & Cai, 2004), use the same communication strategies (Sanchez-Burks, Nisbett, & Ybarra, 2000), or experience emotions in the same way (Kumar, 2004).

According to Wilbaut (2010), a negotiation is considered intercultural when the parties originate from different cultural backgrounds. In such cases, the negotiation process becomes more intricate due to the additional dimension of cultural diversity (Adler, 1997). This variable significantly shapes how individuals perceive and interpret reality (Engle et al., 2013). Indeed, culture influences the negotiation framework, the behavior of participants, and their interaction patterns, factors that collectively determine both the outcome and the form of agreement (Wilbaut, 2010).

As a result, negotiators in intercultural settings encounter a wide range of psychological and behavioral challenges (Adair & Brett, 2004; Imai & Gelfand, 2010). Within this context, the literature distinguishes between two types of motivation: motivation for cooperation and epistemic motivation. The former refers to a negotiator’s willingness to pursue mutual benefits with the counterpart, as commonly emphasized in integrative negotiations, including the reasoned negotiation model (Fisher et al., 2011). The latter relates to challenges in coordination and communication, often arising from divergent cultural norms and expectations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010).

Intercultural Competencies

Working in international contexts requires navigating environments marked by distinct cultural specificities. In such settings, the display of appropriate intercultural skills becomes fundamentally essential. Although there is a tendency to analyze these skills at the organizational level, research has predominantly focused on the individual level of analysis (Sandberg, 2000). Prior studies have classified intercultural skills into three primary model types.

First, intercultural skills are conceptualized as personality traits (e.g., Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000), which refer to personal characteristics that influence an individual’s typical behaviors in culturally diverse situations (Leung et al., 2014). Commonly cited traits include open-mindedness (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000), openness to dissimilarity (Lloyd & Hartel, 2010), tolerance of ambiguity, curiosity (Bird, Mendenhall, Stevens, & Oddou, 2010), the quest for adventure (Javidan & Teagarden, 2011), and cultural empathy (Ang, Rockstuhl & Tan, 2015). In this context, Cahya and Semnani (2024) highlight the significance of intercultural communication in international business negotiations, noting that cultural differences can substantially affect communication styles and negotiation outcomes. Their mixed-methods study, based on interviews and surveys with experienced negotiators, shows that those with high levels of cultural intelligence and adaptability are more effective at understanding cultural nuances, adjusting their communication strategies, and fostering trust-based relationships.

Second, intercultural skills can be viewed as attitudinal dispositions, often described as intercultural or global attitudes (e.g., Bennett, 1986). These pertain to how individuals perceive, evaluate, and engage with other cultures and cultural contexts. Attitudes toward cultural diversity may be favorable (tolerance) or unfavorable (ethnocentrism) (Ang et al., 2015). Individuals with high intercultural competence typically demonstrate a non-ethnocentric orientation (Leung et al., 2014), allowing them to appreciate cultural complexity and seek understanding of both the differences and similarities between cultures (Bennett, 2004). Within this framework, cosmopolitanism is also regarded as a key competency (Javidan & Teagarden, 2011).

Third, intercultural skills are framed as capacities or abilities (e.g., Earley & Ang, 2003), focusing on the practical actions individuals take during intercultural interactions. This model emphasizes an operational perspective, assessing what individuals are actually capable of doing in cross-cultural encounters. Several key characteristics are highlighted in the literature, such as linguistic proficiency (Imahori & Lanigan, 1989), communication adaptability (Lloyd & Härtel, 2010; Hall, 1976), social flexibility (Bird et al., 2010), a holistic mindset, and a willingness to learn and collaborate with culturally different individuals. Central to this model is the inclusion of the four dimensions of cultural intelligence, metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral (Earley & Ang, 2003).

According to Leung et al. (2014), models based on personality traits and attitudes are more conducive to intercultural adaptation, whereas models centered on abilities are better suited for problem-solving in intercultural contexts. Mixed models, which integrate more than one dimension, such as traits, attitudes, and abilities, are also increasingly recognized in the literature (e.g., Javidan & Teagarden, 2011). (Figure 1 in Appendix 1 illustrates the different types of models proposed in the literature).

Cultural intelligence

Inspired by Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (1983), Earley (2002) introduced cultural intelligence (CQ) as a distinct form of intelligence particularly suited to intercultural contexts. This construct is notable not only as a form of intelligence but also as a recognized intercultural competence in its own right. Since its conceptualization, CQ has garnered increasing scholarly interest across various disciplines within management sciences. Its application to intercultural business negotiations was first explored in depth by Imai and Gelfand (2010), marking a significant development in the literature.

Multiple scholars have proposed definitions of cultural intelligence, yet they converge on a central idea: CQ is not merely the ability to adapt to culturally different others, but more importantly, it is the ability to act effectively in unfamiliar cultural settings. Sternberg, Chowkase, Desmet, Karami, Lu, & Landy (2021), for instance, define cultural intelligence as the capacity to adapt when confronted with interactional challenges involving people or artifacts from cultures different from one’s own. In this sense, cultural intelligence emphasizes effectiveness across diverse intercultural contexts. It functions as a managerial tool for navigating cultural diversity and is not limited to any specific cultural background (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). CQ also possesses a practical dimension, grounded in cultural knowledge and decision-making, making it closely related to what has been termed practical intelligence, which differs from general cognitive intelligence (Ang, Ng, & Rockstuhl, 2020; Sternberg et al., 2021).

Moreover, as consistently highlighted in the literature, cultural intelligence is a multidimensional construct (Ahmad & Mehmood, 2025; Ang et al., 2015; Taras, 2020), comprising four core dimensions: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioural. According to Ang et al. (2015), the metacognitive component refers to an individual’s mental capacity to acquire, reflect on, and revise cultural knowledge in real time to support more effective intercultural interactions. The cognitive dimension pertains to one’s knowledge of the norms, practices, and conventions of other cultures, allowing individuals to discern both similarities and differences compared to their cultural frameworks (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). The motivational dimension relates to an individual’s interest in and drive to engage in intercultural situations, including the willingness to exert effort to function effectively in diverse cultural settings. Lastly, the behavioural dimension concerns the capacity to demonstrate flexibility in verbal and non-verbal communication, thereby enabling the development of culturally appropriate interaction styles (Sharma & Hussain, 2017).

Recent research has reinforced the strategic value of cultural intelligence (CQ) in international negotiation contexts (Ang et al., 2015; Taras, 2020). Rammutla (2025), in a systematic review, positions CQ as a foundational construct for effective cross-border collaboration, highlighting its multidimensional contribution, metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioural, in managing the complexities inherent in intercultural negotiation. This work aligns with a broader consensus that emphasizes the necessity of understanding cultural nuances not only to prevent misunderstandings and build trust, but also to enable the formation of strategic alliances and the resolution of cultural tensions that often hinder negotiation effectiveness.

Methodology

To investigate the sub-themes of cultural intelligence within the context of commercial negotiations, a qualitative study was undertaken. The lack of empirical studies exploring cultural intelligence in intercultural commercial negotiations, coupled with ongoing debates in the literature concerning its conceptual distinction from other intercultural skills, necessitated a more in-depth, exploratory analysis. This justified the adoption of a qualitative, exploratory research design.

The aim of this study was to explore the role of intercultural skills in negotiations involving culturally diverse dyads, as well as to understand how negotiators perceive and apply the construct of cultural intelligence. Specifically, the study sought to identify the intercultural skills that are considered important and effective by negotiators engaged in cross-cultural negotiations; to examine how professional negotiators conceptualize cultural intelligence; to determine which dimensions of cultural intelligence are seen as most influential in intercultural negotiation contexts; and to assess the significance negotiators attribute to cultural intelligence as a tool for managing cultural diversity in international commercial negotiations.

To achieve these objectives, the study was conducted during the African International Conference on Business Continuity and Resilience, known as "AFRICA ADAPT 2024," held from October 18 to 20, 2024, in Hammamet, Tunisia. The sample comprised twenty professionals, including business leaders, senior executives, and import/export managers, representing a wide range of nationalities: two each from South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia, Italy, France, the United States, Algeria, and Morocco, and one each from the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and the United Arab Emirates. These participants came from various industries such as manufacturing, information technology, logistics, financial services, energy, consumer goods, healthcare, and international trade, and possessed extensive experience in international negotiations. To enhance the robustness of the findings, efforts were made to ensure maximum sample heterogeneity across sectors, gender, age, and professional background. The principle of data saturation, as proposed by Mucchielli (1994), was used to determine the final sample size. After the twentieth interview, no new insights were emerging, indicating that the research objectives had been sufficiently met, and the data collection process was concluded.

Semi-structured interviews were employed as the primary data collection method, allowing participants the freedom to articulate their experiences and perspectives while maintaining alignment with the research focus. Participants were encouraged to reflect on their lived experiences in negotiating with foreign partners, providing contextually rich insights. The interview protocol was initially developed through a combination of literature review and intuitive design, and was then reviewed by three experienced negotiation professionals to assess the relevance and clarity of the questions. Based on their feedback, minor revisions were made before finalizing the guide. The interview guide was structured around two thematic axes. The first axis focused on identifying key intercultural skills that enable negotiators to interact effectively with culturally diverse counterparts, thereby situating cultural intelligence within its broader conceptual framework. Respondents were asked questions such as, "In your opinion, what skills are needed to interact effectively with culturally different individuals?" and "What skills are necessary for successful negotiation with a foreign partner?" The second axis addressed the concept of cultural intelligence more directly, exploring practitioners’ understanding of the term and the perceived importance of demonstrating cultural intelligence in intercultural negotiations.

To analyze the data, we employed a directed thematic content analysis using a hybrid deductive-inductive approach (Bardin, 2013; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). This approach allowed for the systematic integration of predefined themes derived from the literature, namely, intercultural skills and cultural intelligence, while remaining open to the emergence of new insights from the participants’ narratives. Data analysis was conducted manually, following the procedures outlined by Weber (1990) and Evrard, Pras, Roux, & Desmet (2009). The process was collaborative, ensuring inter-coder reliability through cross-validation of the codes and themes identified. After transcribing the interviews, data were coded inductively from participants' verbatim responses, grouped into categories, and then organized into sub-themes based on semantic proximity. Frequencies of occurrence were calculated to determine the most prominent sub-themes, which allowed us to highlight the themes most salient to the participants.

The final interpretation of the findings was structured in a summary table to enhance clarity and traceability. Given the exploratory nature of the research, special attention was paid to identifying and distinguishing as many sub-themes as possible, thereby ensuring analytical precision. The findings derived from this process are presented in the following section with more details in Appendices 1 and 2.

Findings

Theme 1: Intercultural Competencies

In the first phase of this qualitative study, professionals were asked to identify the interpersonal skills they consider essential for successful intercultural negotiation. Based on the thematic coding of the interviews, eight key competencies emerged: communication, self-confidence, emotional intelligence, information-seeking, acceptance of difference, cultural adaptability, empathy, and a spirit of cooperation. The absolute frequencies of these occurrences were calculated to highlight the most salient skills as perceived by the interviewees (see Figure 1). Further details are presented in Appendix 2.

Figure 1.Intercultural skills in negotiation

Communication was consistently identified as the core competency for effective negotiation, a finding that aligns with existing literature emphasizing its central role in intercultural contexts (Cahya & Semnani, 2024). Respondents reiterated that miscommunication resulting from cultural differences frequently leads to misunderstandings and, ultimately, negotiation failure. To overcome these barriers, they reported leveraging multilingual abilities, ensuring message clarity, and integrating both verbal and non-verbal cues. As one respondent expressed: “You have to master the language, the verbal and the non-verbal, in a very well-balanced way.” Others emphasized the importance of observation, listening, and facilitating conversation: “Good observation, listening, knowing how to trigger discussion topics,” and “I have to adapt, be careful about what I say, how I do it.”

Beyond communication, self-confidence and emotional intelligence also emerged as critical themes. Negotiators described self-confidence as instrumental in establishing credibility and building trust. One participant remarked, “Having confidence in your abilities in front of your partner... when I show him that I have confidence in myself, I will gain his trust.” Conversely, a lack of self-confidence was associated with diminished performance and increased vulnerability to negotiation failure. Emotional intelligence was also frequently cited as a vital skill. Respondents emphasized the need for emotional regulation and composure, as reflected in statements such as, “It is essential to know how to control yourself and have emotional intelligence,” and “You need composure, patience…”

In addition, accepting cultural differences and gathering contextual information about negotiation partners were viewed as essential practices. As one professional advised, “Be tolerant and accept others,” adding, “In addition, you need knowledge of the context of each country, an understanding of the cultural and political aspects.” Such awareness enables negotiators to position themselves more strategically and to anticipate their counterparts’ expectations.

Cultural adaptability was also strongly emphasized as vital for success in unfamiliar cultural environments. Respondents discussed the importance of adjusting to new contexts and avoiding cultural missteps. One negotiator explained, “If there is a contradiction between the cultures of the two parties, each must adapt to the culture of the other… make sure you don’t make any mistakes.” Another added, “Having the ability to adapt to an environment different from my own is key.”

Empathy was likewise considered essential, particularly in recognizing and responding to the emotional and psychological dimensions of negotiation. Participants stressed the importance of listening with sensitivity and seeing issues from the other party’s perspective. This was reflected in comments such as, “Empathy is essential to understanding each other,” “You have to position yourself on the other side to see things more clearly,” and “It is a form of connected knowing.” Negotiators agreed that this humanistic capacity fosters relationships rooted in mutual recognition rather than dominance.

Lastly, although mentioned less frequently, the importance of a cooperative mindset was not absent from the discourse. A minority of participants explicitly highlighted cooperation as a strategic necessity. One participant stated, “You have to be willing to cooperate to move things forward.” According to these respondents, cooperation, balanced with a competitive edge, is crucial to achieving mutually beneficial outcomes, consistent with prior findings (Folberg, Golann, Stipanowich, Kloppenberg's, 2010). A summary table in Appendix 1 illustrates all of the findings mentioned above.

Theme 2: Cultural Intelligence

As a relatively new form of intelligence, this second theme enabled us to verify the negotiators’ understanding of the construct of cultural intelligence, as well as the importance they attribute to this skill in negotiations. Table 1 summarizes the findings with further details in Appendix 2.

Table 1.Meaning and importance of cultural intelligence
	Categories	Sub-themes	Repetitions of occurrence	%
Meaning of cultural intelligence	Open-mindedness	Acceptance of difference	20	40.82%
	Acceptance of others
	Avoidance of prejudices and stereotypes
	Language proficiency	Adaptation of communication	11	22.45%
	Mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication
	Flexibility
	Adjustment	Adaptability	10	20.4%
	Knowledge of the foreign environment	Collection of information	8	16.33%
	Knowledge of the other	Collection of information	8	16.33%
Importance of cultural intelligence in negotiation	Successful negotiations	performance of negotiations	10	66.67%
	Efficiency of exchanges	performance of negotiations	10	66.67%
	Finalization of negotiations	Achievement of objectives	5	33.33%

Source: developed by authors based on interviews' findings

The findings revealed that, according to professionals, cultural intelligence refers to the ability to adapt to a different cultural context for the benefit of a better interaction. One respondent stated, “It promotes the ability to adapt and enables one to understand the mentality of the other, particularly when the customs, traditions, and societal codes are fundamentally different.” Other respondents affirmed this view, emphasizing that cultural intelligence represents an adaptive capacity that facilitates better management of discussions: “It is a certain ability to adapt that allows one to better manage discussions. It is the ability to adjust to an environment different from my own.”

More specifically, according to the professionals interviewed, cultural intelligence consists first of accepting difference, expressed through open-mindedness, empathy, and the avoidance of prejudice and stereotypes. One negotiator observed, “In the context of intercultural negotiations, it is obvious that the profiles are very heterogeneous. To respond appropriately, you must first accept the other, have the ability to step back, and analyze.” Another participant confirmed this sentiment: “Negotiations are conducted with human beings who have feelings and a very particular state of mind that must be acknowledged in order to achieve the objectives of the negotiation.”

Second, cultural intelligence entails acquiring knowledge about the negotiation partner, including familiarity with the cultural characteristics of their country of origin. As one professional explained, “It is about being well-informed and having sufficient knowledge about the partner, their country of origin, their culture, etc.”

Finally, cultural intelligence, according to negotiation professionals, also involves demonstrating behavioral flexibility and adapting one’s communication, both verbal and non-verbal. Several respondents emphasized the importance of language and non-verbal nuance. One participant remarked, “Cultural intelligence means having a clear command of the language. You must know how to balance verbal and non-verbal communication, know how to express yourself, and remain flexible to ensure that negotiations proceed smoothly. Language proficiency is essential to interact properly with foreign partners.” Another respondent underscored the importance of message delivery, stating that cultural intelligence also means “paying attention to what I say” and “how to say it.”

Having explored practitioners’ understanding of the cultural intelligence construct and its dimensions, we proceeded to evaluate its perceived importance in negotiation. The findings show a strong consensus among respondents regarding the critical role of cultural intelligence in culturally diverse contexts. They emphasized that this form of intelligence becomes even more vital in negotiation scenarios. For many, it is seen as a strategic asset essential to the success of intercultural negotiations. One participant stated, “A very important strategic variable for a successful negotiation. It is very important to have cultural intelligence to succeed in intercultural negotiations.” Others highlighted its utility in goal attainment, stating, “It is important because it gives us the power to interact with our culturally different partners to achieve goals. In my opinion, it is a skill that helps achieve goals and make negotiations happen.”

Discussion

The findings of this qualitative exploration strongly align with existing literature on intercultural skills. Communication emerged as the most essential competency, consistent with prior research that highlights the importance of language proficiency (Imahori & Lanigan, 1989) and communication adaptability (Lloyd & Härtel, 2010) in intercultural negotiations. These skills are vital for overcoming challenges related to language barriers and differing communication norms (Hall, 1976). Respondents in the present study affirmed the importance of both verbal and non-verbal communication, as well as the ability to adapt to culturally different partners.

Participants also emphasized the acceptance of cultural differences as a prerequisite for negotiation success. This perspective resonates with earlier contributions by Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000), Lloyd and Härtel (2010), and Bird et al. (2010), who identified traits such as open-mindedness and acceptance of dissimilarity as key components of intercultural competence. Furthermore, the professionals interviewed highlighted the need to acquire knowledge about one’s negotiation partner. This aligns with Bennett’s (1993) argument that understanding both differences and similarities between cultures is critical when engaging in cross-cultural dialogue.

In addition to these well-established themes, respondents identified emotional intelligence and self-confidence as critical for successful intercultural negotiation. While the literature frequently references related concepts such as curiosity (Bird et al., 2010) and the quest for adventure (Javidan & Teagarden, 2011), the prominence given to emotional control and personal assurance in this study underscores their practical value in high-stakes negotiation settings. Empathy, though mentioned, was considered by respondents to be of secondary importance compared to the aforementioned competencies. This nuanced view slightly contrasts with literature that positions empathy as a central element of intercultural competence (Ang et al., 2015). Regarding cultural intelligence (CQ) specifically, our findings are consistent with the literature that emphasizes its operational nature, the ability to act effectively in culturally unfamiliar contexts (Andresen & Bergdolt, 2017; Sternberg et al., 2021). Respondents primarily referenced three dimensions of CQ: metacognitive, cognitive, and behavioural.

The metacognitive dimension, which involves critical awareness and reflective thinking about cultural assumptions and strategies, was frequently cited by participants and regarded as crucial for managing cultural differences. This reinforces previous findings which consider metacognitive CQ one of the strongest predictors of negotiation performance in intercultural contexts (Ang et al., 2015; Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2007; Chua, Morris, & Mor, 2012; Engle et al., 2013; Thomas, Elron, Stahl, & Ekelund, 2008). This dimension, when combined with cognitive understanding, appears to support effective behavioral adjustment, as also suggested by Souni (2008).

The behavioural dimension, which concerns the capacity to adapt verbal and non-verbal behavior during intercultural interactions, was also strongly emphasized by respondents. This corresponds with existing literature that regards this adaptability as essential for smooth cross-cultural exchanges (Sharma & Hussain, 2017). Participants highlighted the importance of language use, gesture, tone, and body language in achieving mutual understanding, underlining the practical relevance of this dimension.

The cognitive dimension was also acknowledged, particularly in terms of acquiring knowledge about the cultural background of negotiation partners. Respondents viewed this as foundational; one cannot engage meaningfully in cross-cultural negotiation without understanding the relevant cultural context. This finding is in line with the work of Thomas et al. (2008), Ang and Van Dyne (2008), and Feyerherm & Gu (2015), all of whom argue that cultural knowledge is indispensable for navigating international negotiations.

Interestingly, the motivational dimension of CQ was not explicitly mentioned by the respondents, despite its prominence in the literature (e.g., Ang et al., 2007; Imai & Gelfand, 2010; Salmon, Gelfand, Çelik, Kraus, Wilkenfeld, & Inman, 2013). This omission may be explained by the possibility that professionals perceive motivation as a baseline requirement, an intrinsic quality linked to the personal will and confidence of the negotiator. Consequently, they may view motivation as less malleable or less dependent on external training or organizational initiatives. This interpretation might also explain the stronger emphasis placed on the development of tolerance, cultural awareness, and behavioral adjustment rather than internal motivational drive.

The professionals’ views on the importance of cultural intelligence in achieving successful negotiation outcomes are consistent with existing studies, which link CQ to improved performance through cooperative strategies, shared information, and the resolution of cultural tensions (Ang et al., 2015; Chua et al., 2012; Engle et al., 2013; Groves et al., 2015; Guicherd, Dampérat, & Jolibert, 2011; Imai & Gelfand, 2010). Respondents confirmed that CQ enables the management of conflict and the pursuit of integrative negotiation strategies, ultimately contributing to more effective and mutually beneficial outcomes.

Finally, while the merits of cultural intelligence were acknowledged, several professionals also emphasized an ethical dimension that has not been widely discussed in the literature. Specifically, they cautioned that CQ should be applied for cooperative purposes, not manipulation. This insight introduces an underexplored yet important aspect of cultural intelligence, its ethical application, and points toward a potential new avenue for future research.

Conclusions And Limitations of The Research

This study explored the pivotal role of cultural intelligence in international B2B negotiations and highlighted its practical implications within culturally diverse contexts. The originality of this research lies in its focus on cultural intelligence, a concept still underexplored in the literature on intercultural negotiations, conceptualized through its metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioural dimensions. These dimensions are instrumental in ensuring the success of intercultural interactions, as supported by recent findings from researchers at Kalinga University (Jose, J., & Navdeep, 2024). In today’s increasingly interconnected global economy, understanding cultural nuances is essential for navigating the complexity of international negotiations.

Our findings, based on insights from experienced negotiation professionals representing diverse cultural backgrounds, indicate that cultural intelligence not only reduces the likelihood of misunderstandings but also fosters trust and facilitates the achievement of mutually beneficial outcomes. The capacity to build strategic alliances and manage cultural tensions is thus critical for the success of international collaborations. Furthermore, during the African International Conference on Business Continuity and Resilience, “AFRICA ADAPT 2024,” held from October 18 to 20, 2024, in Hammamet, Tunisia, it was emphasized that developing cultural intelligence is a strategic asset that can significantly contribute to enhancing business continuity. As companies face a wide range of risks and crises, investing in the development of cultural intelligence becomes essential for thriving in multicultural business environments.

These findings converge with the managerial contributions of this study, which call on international companies to give particular attention to cultural intelligence as a core intercultural skill in negotiation. Specifically, organizations are encouraged to incorporate targeted training initiatives aimed at developing the metacognitive, cognitive, and behavioural capacities of negotiators. Practitioners are advised to avoid cultural stereotypes and ethnocentric judgments, acquire in-depth knowledge of their partners’ cultural characteristics, and adapt both verbal and non-verbal communication styles. Such approaches will promote mutual understanding and contribute to more effective, inclusive, and results-oriented negotiations.

Despite its significant contributions, this study also presents several limitations. Notably, it does not explore the antecedents of cultural intelligence nor the mechanisms through which this competence develops. Future research should aim to investigate these determinants more deeply, particularly through longitudinal studies that trace the evolution of cultural intelligence over time. Additionally, examining the impact of cultural intelligence on negotiation strategies and outcomes presents a promising avenue for future inquiry. Research at the organizational level is also warranted, as cultural intelligence could potentially enhance organizational resilience and the long-term sustainability of operations. A cross-sectoral comparative analysis would further illuminate contextual specificities, providing a more nuanced understanding of how cultural intelligence functions across industries. Finally, the findings of this study could be strengthened through quantitative validation of the themes identified in the qualitative analysis.

In conclusion, despite these limitations, this research successfully highlights the critical importance of cultural intelligence in fostering effective intercultural negotiations and achieving business objectives. It encourages a sustained commitment to the development of intercultural skills, both at the individual and organizational levels, as a pathway to global business success.

Acknowledgement Statement: The authors would like to thank to all participants and the reviewers for providing comments in helping this manuscript to completion.

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Authors' contribution statements: Conceptualization, S.S., I.Z., A.E.E.S., and H.N.E.E.; methodology, S.S. and I.Z.; software, S.S., and I.Z.; validation, S.S., I.F., and I.Z.; formal analysis, S.S., and I.Z.; investigation, S.S., I.F., and I.Z.; resources, A.E.E.S.; data curation, S.S., and I.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, S.S., I.Z. A.E.E.S. and H.N.E.E.; writing—review and editing, S.S., I.F., I.Z., and A.E.E.S.; supervision, I.Z.; project administration, A.E.E.S.; funding acquisition, H.N.E.E. and I.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding statements: This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia, grant number KFU250096. Additionally, this research was funded by the General Directorate of Scientific Research & Innovation, Dar Al Uloom University, through the Scientific Publishing Funding Program.

Data availability statement: Data is available at request. Please contact the corresponding author for any additional information on data access or usage.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect JICC's or editors' official policy or position. All liability for harm done to individuals or property as a result of any ideas, methods, instructions, or products mentioned in the content is expressly disclaimed.

Read Counter : 4117 Download : 1370

Share Now

Cultural Intelligence in International B2B Negotiations: An Exploratory Study on the Role of Intercultural Competencies

Abstract

Full text article

References