| Course | GB526 Global Management and Leadership |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Leadership self-assessment |
| Length | About 860 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB526 Unit 4
Knowing More Than I Do: A Unit 4 Leadership Self-Assessment on the Cultural Intelligence Scale
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB526: Global Management and Leadership
Unit 4 Leadership Self-Assessment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The writer, the teams and the scores are composite; the instrument and sources cited are real.
The Instrument
The Cultural Intelligence Scale is a twenty-item questionnaire developed by Ang et al. (2007). It measures four factors: metacognitive cultural intelligence, the awareness and planning a person brings to cross-cultural interactions; cognitive, knowledge of norms and practices in other cultures; motivational, the interest and confidence a person brings to them; and behavioral, the ability to adjust verbal and nonverbal behavior. Each item is rated on a seven-point scale. Earley and Ang (2003) describe cultural intelligence as a capability that can be developed, not a fixed trait, which is why the scale suits a development plan.
My Scores
On the seven-point scale, my factor averages were:
Metacognitive: [5.3].
Cognitive: [5.8].
Motivational: [5.5].
Behavioral: [3.6].
The pattern was clear from the start. My cognitive score was the highest and my behavioral score the lowest, more than two points apart. I know a good deal about Indian and Polish business norms. I have read about hierarchy in Indian engineering teams and about the Polish preference for direct, detailed technical debate. What the scores suggested is that I adjust very little when I am actually in a meeting.
My highest score measures what I know about my colleagues' cultures; my lowest measures whether that knowledge changes anything I do.
Looking for the Behavior
A self-report score is a starting point, so I reviewed recordings of six recent meetings: three with the Bengaluru team and three with the Krakow team. I counted four behaviors I believed mattered.
How often I asked a named person for their view: twice across the three Bengaluru meetings and five times across the Krakow meetings.
How long I waited after asking a question before speaking again: on average under three seconds in Bengaluru meetings.
How often I interrupted: eleven times across the six meetings, nine of them interrupting someone whose first language is not English.
How much of each meeting I spoke: about 60 percent of the time in Bengaluru meetings and about 45 percent in Krakow meetings.
The counts surprised me. I had believed I ran inclusive meetings. In fact, I asked the Bengaluru engineers directly for their views far less often than the Krakow engineers, waited only briefly for answers, and filled most of the time myself. I knew that junior engineers in Bengaluru might be reluctant to speak before seniors were heard, but I had not changed my behavior to make room for them. With the Krakow team, I adjusted more naturally because their direct style is close to mine.
What Explains the Gap
Molinsky (2013) argues that knowing what a situation requires is different from being able to do it, and that the difficulty often lies in feeling uncomfortable or inauthentic when behaving differently. That fits my experience. Silence in meetings makes me uneasy, so I fill it. Asking a junior engineer by name feels like putting them on the spot, so I avoid it, even though I know the alternative is that they say nothing. My knowledge has been working as a substitute for behavior rather than a guide to it.
My motivational score also deserves a note. I enjoy working with both teams and want to do it well. High motivation without behavioral change may have made me overconfident: I assumed that caring about inclusion meant I was practicing it.
Three Changes
1. Wait longer. After asking a question in a Bengaluru meeting, I will wait at least eight seconds before speaking again, and I will tell each meeting in advance that I do this, so the pause is expected.
2. Ask by name, with notice. I will send discussion questions a day ahead, and in the meeting I will ask named engineers for their views on items they have had time to consider, so that being asked is a sign of respect rather than a test.
3. Speak less. I will aim to speak for no more than 35 percent of each meeting and will ask a Bengaluru team lead to run part of the agenda.
How I Will Check
I will review three recorded meetings with each team in two months and count the same four behaviors. I will also ask both team leads for brief, private feedback on whether meetings feel different. If the counts improve but the team leads see no change, I will ask what I am missing. I will retake the Cultural Intelligence Scale in six months, expecting the behavioral score to rise, and I will treat a rise without a change in the recorded counts as a sign that I am reporting what I intend rather than what I do.
What This Assessment Taught Me
The recordings, more than the scale, gave this assessment its value. The scale told me where to look; the recordings showed me what I was doing. I expect to keep using that combination for other parts of my leadership.
References
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (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
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press.
Molinsky, A. (2013). Global dexterity: How to adapt your behavior across cultures without losing yourself in the process. Harvard Business Review Press.
The Purdue Global GB526 Unit 4 instructions
GB526 Unit 4 asks you to assess your cross-cultural leadership capability using an instrument and evidence. Introduce the instrument and what it measures. Report your scores and the pattern they show. Then look for evidence of the pattern in your actual behavior, such as recorded meetings, feedback or specific incidents, and describe what you find. Explain the gap with research. Set out concrete changes and say how you will verify each one. Write in the first person, about five pages, citing the instrument and research in APA 7.
How the GB 526 Unit 4 example is put together
The assessment introduces the twenty-item Cultural Intelligence Scale of Ang and colleagues and its four factors, citing Earley and Ang on developing the capability. Bracketed factor scores show cognitive highest and behavioral lowest, and the highlighted sentence names the gap. Counts from six recorded meetings show how often the writer asked named people, how long they waited, how often they interrupted and how much they spoke. Molinsky explains why knowing does not become doing. Three changes, waiting eight seconds, asking by name with notice and speaking less, follow, with recorded-meeting checks, team-lead feedback and a retest. The paper closes by noting that the recordings, more than the scale, gave the assessment its value.
Reading the GB526 Unit 4 grading rubric
GB526 rubric credit for this self-assessment rests on scores tested against evidence and changes specific enough to check. Introducing the instrument accurately earns early credit. Reporting the pattern in the scores shows understanding. Gathering evidence of actual behavior, such as counts from recordings, carries significant weight because it turns a self-report into something the writer can act on. Research that explains the gap shows depth. Concrete changes paired with a method for verifying them, plus a retest, complete it. The self-assessment's APA 7 citations are Ang and colleagues' scale, Earley and Ang and Molinsky. Counting a few behaviors across several meetings gives the self-assessment evidence a reader can check. Changes stated as numbers, such as an eight-second wait or a 35 percent speaking limit, make the follow-up review possible.
GB526 Unit 4 help from the desk
Many GB526 Unit 4 self-assessments report scores and describe them without checking them against behavior. Others set goals such as being more inclusive, which cannot be checked. A frequent gap is evidence: a self-report score says what the writer believes, and recordings or feedback show what they do. Some writers describe the other cultures at length. Introduce the instrument, report the pattern, look for it in real behavior, explain the gap and set specific changes with a way to measure them. Treating a rise in the retest score without a change in behavior as a warning shows honest self-assessment. Writers also gain credit by explaining why motivation without behavior can produce overconfidence, since caring about inclusion is not the same as practicing it.
Get a GB526 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Take the cultural intelligence or intercultural instrument your section assigns and send your scored result, the prompt for Unit 4 with its rubric, and a note on the colleagues you work with across borders. The self-assessment reads your factors against the model and leaves bracketed room for evidence that lives in your own meetings; it arrives in 24-48h, free the first time. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB526 papers and MBA samples
- GB526 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB526 Unit 2: Cultural Analysis
- GB526 Unit 3: Case Analysis
- GB526 Unit 5: Virtual Team Plan
- GB526 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB526 Unit 7: Expatriate Assignment Brief
- GB526 Unit 8: Negotiation Analysis
- GB526 Unit 9: Change Leadership Plan
- GB526 Unit 10: Leadership Development Report
- GB525 Unit 4: Currency Exposure Memo
- GB520 Unit 4: Recruiting Strategy and Decision Matrix
- GB519 Unit 4: Job Costing Problem
- GB518 Unit 4: FIFO LIFO Inventory Costing
GB526 Unit 4 questions, answered
Does GB526 always use the Cultural Intelligence Scale?
Many GB526 sections use the Cultural Intelligence Scale, but some assign the Intercultural Development Inventory, a global mindset measure or a general leadership questionnaire. The approach holds: report the result briefly, test it against your conduct with people from other cultures, explain any gap, and close on one behavior. Name the instrument's authors and what it measures before interpreting it.
Can domestic cross-cultural experience count as evidence?
Use the cross-cultural contact you do have: colleagues from other countries or regions, customers, a diverse team at home, or a past role abroad. Many writers draw on domestic diversity, and graders accept it when the analysis stays specific. Say plainly what setting the evidence comes from and what it cannot show about international work.
How much should the paper say about the other cultures involved?
Only as much as the finding needs. The self-assessment is about your conduct, so country description stays brief and names the norms you knew and did not act on. Long passages on national culture turn the paper into a country report, which is not what the rubric grades. Two or three sourced sentences per culture usually carry enough context.
Where can I find a free GB526 Unit 4 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB526 Unit 4 leadership self-assessment on the Cultural Intelligence Scale, with factor scores, evidence from recorded meetings, three changes and APA 7 references.
Why review recorded meetings instead of relying on the scores?
The scale reports how the writer sees themselves. Counting behaviors in recordings showed what actually happened, such as asking Bengaluru engineers by name far less often than Krakow engineers.