Sustainable Cross-Cultural Service Management: Cultural Intelligence as a Mediating Mechanism Between Cultural Values and Influence Tactics in International Civil Aviation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. INTRIGUING START

Thank you very much for inviting me to review the paper. The topics of cultural intelligence and cultural values are very dear to my heart. I have spent decades working on them, developed cultural intelligence and cultural value instruments of my own, and published numerous works in this area, so I was intrigued by a study that explores these specific areas in the context of airline cabin crews. I haven't seen anything like that before, so I accepted the invitation to review the manuscript. It is quite impressive that the study is based on a large sample of 633 Turkish airline cabin crew members. This is definitely a unique sample, which makes the study interesting.

However, I see many substantial problems with this paper and study, which I have detailed below.

2. VERY DUBIOUS THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

I was puzzled by the theoretical part of the study and the resulting hypotheses. It is very strange to see a hypothesis that cultural values affect cultural intelligence. No doubt such correlations can emerge based on empirical data, but I don't see any direct theoretical link, and I highly doubt that such a causal relation can exist. The paper does not make a clear argument for why cultural values should lead to different cultural intelligence.

Logically, if this were the case, we would see systemic variations in cultural intelligence across countries as we see variations in cultural values. I don't think we see such systemic variation, at least not based on my own research, and I haven't seen studies that show it in a convincing way.

Second, the explanation for why, for example, power distance should be negatively related to cultural intelligence, while uncertainty avoidance is positively related, is unconvincing. It seems like post hoc theorizing based on what the empirical data showed.

I am less concerned about the link between cultural values and influence tactics, but the explanations are still relatively primitive in terms of the theoretical rationale provided.

Third, it is generally not a good design when everything relates to everything. In this study, essentially every dimension of cultural values relates to every dimension of cultural intelligence, which in turn relates to every dimension of influence tactics. It makes little theoretical or practical sense to do it that way.

3. GOOD SAMPLE

The sample is quite impressive. While it may not be particularly suitable for this specific study, it is unusual to see such a sample in cross-cultural research.

4. UNSUITABLE SAMPLE

At the same time, this is probably the most unsuitable sample for a study like this. If the goal is to study how variations in cultural values affect cultural intelligence and influence tactics, shouldn't the sample be culturally diverse? Here, all respondents come from the same country and profession. It would be very strange to see dramatic differences in their cultural values.

5. MEASURES OK

The chosen instruments are fine. They all suffer from serious problems that have been discussed in the literature, but there are not necessarily better instruments available. I suppose these are suitable choices.

6. UNCONVINCED ABOUT COMMON SOURCE BIAS

It is good that the authors checked for common method bias, but I don't buy these statistics. All of the data in this study came from self-report attitudinal surveys. At best, a study with this design can show a relationship between how people respond to questions that are very similar in structure and tone.

Even if the single-factor test suggests there is no threat of common-source bias, the nature of these instruments suggests otherwise. At best, this approach discovers similarities in how people respond to questions that are already subject to subjective interpretations. Given that each instrument is subject to socially desirable response bias and subjectivity, jamming all three into one questionnaire is not a good design.

7. SO WHAT?

I suppose there might be some value in exploring the relationship among all dimensions of culture, cultural intelligence, and influence tactics. However, when everything relates to everything and the effect sizes are modest, it is hard to imagine a manager having an "aha moment" that would change how they do things.

I was hoping to see more insights in the practical implications section. Essentially, this section just restates the relationships found in the results. It doesn't say what managers should start or stop doing with respect to recruitment, compensation, or performance management in light of these findings.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We sincerely thank you for your careful and thorough engagement with our manuscript. Your decades of experience with cultural intelligence and cultural values research brings valuable perspective, and we appreciate the time you invested in providing detailed feedback. We are pleased that you found our large sample of Turkish airline cabin crew members impressive and unique, recognizing the distinctiveness of this empirical context.

We have carefully considered all of your concerns and have made substantial revisions to address them. However, we respectfully disagree with several of your core theoretical criticisms and offer evidence-based rebuttals while also strengthening our theoretical exposition and practical implications as you recommended.

Regarding the theoretical link between cultural values and cultural intelligence: You expressed concern that no direct theoretical link exists and that our hypotheses appear to be post hoc theorizing. We respectfully but firmly disagree with this characterization. The theoretical foundation for cultural values as antecedents of cultural intelligence is well-established in the cultural intelligence literature itself, though we acknowledge that our original manuscript did not make this foundation sufficiently explicit.

Earley and Ang's original conceptualization of cultural intelligence explicitly discusses how early cultural socialization provides experiential foundations for cultural intelligence development. Subsequent empirical research by Ng, Van Dyne, and Ang demonstrated that multicultural socialization experiences during formative years predict higher cultural intelligence. The theoretical mechanism operates through psychological readiness: cultural values shape openness to cultural differences, tolerance for ambiguity, interpersonal awareness, and behavioral flexibility—the very psychological orientations that enable or constrain cultural learning and cross-cultural adaptation. This is not post hoc theorizing but rather an application of established developmental and socialization perspectives to individual-level cultural phenomena.

To address your concern, we have added substantial theoretical clarification in two locations. First, immediately after our introduction of cultural intelligence in Section 2.2, we added a comprehensive paragraph explaining the theoretical foundation for examining cultural values as antecedents of cultural intelligence, citing Earley and Ang, Ng et al., and related developmental research (pages 12-13, lines 289-304). Second, we added explicit bridging paragraphs between major theoretical sections that clarify how cultural values create psychological readiness for cultural learning rather than deterministically producing cultural intelligence (pages 11-12, lines 267-278).

Regarding your observation that we would expect systematic cross-national variation in cultural intelligence if our theory were correct, we note that our study design specifically addresses this issue by examining individual-level variation within a single national context rather than cross-national differences. This design choice directly responds to limitations you identified—by using individual-level cultural value assessment through the validated CVSCALE instrument rather than national culture proxies, we avoid confounding cultural values with the numerous institutional, economic, educational, and political factors that vary across nations. Our approach isolates the psychological mechanisms through which personal cultural orientations influence cross-cultural capability development. Research has consistently demonstrated substantial within-country variation in individual cultural orientations, which is precisely what we examine. We have strengthened our methodological justification for this approach in Section 3.3.4 (pages 23-24, lines 567-580).

Regarding the "everything relates to everything" concern: You suggested that our comprehensive model specification makes little theoretical or practical sense. We respectfully disagree with this characterization. Testing comprehensive relationships serves important methodological purposes that we have now clarified more explicitly in the manuscript. First, comprehensive specification avoids specification bias that would occur if we selectively tested only hypothesized pathways while ignoring theoretically plausible alternatives. Second, discovering null relationships provides valuable scientific information—for example, our finding that masculinity does not predict cultural intelligence contradicts theoretical predictions and merits reporting. Third, examining multiple pathways enabled us to discover the complex competitive mediation pattern for coercive tactics, which emerged precisely because we tested comprehensive relationships rather than limiting analysis to selected pathways.

We emphasize that our discussion focuses on the strongest patterns and most theoretically meaningful findings rather than treating every estimated path as equally important. We have added methodological justification for comprehensive model specification in Section 3.6 Phase 3 (pages 28-29, lines 689-704), explaining that our analytical strategy prioritizes theoretical comprehensiveness and parameter interpretability while acknowledging that model complexity affects incremental fit indices.

Regarding sample suitability: You expressed concern that our sample is unsuitable because all respondents come from the same country and profession, suggesting we would not see dramatic differences in cultural values. This critique misunderstands the purpose of individual-level cultural value measurement. The CVSCALE instrument was specifically developed to assess individual cultural orientations precisely because equating individual culture with national culture oversimplifies reality. Research consistently demonstrates substantial within-country variation in personal cultural values, with individuals from the same nation showing meaningful differences in collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and masculinity based on family socialization, educational experiences, regional subcultures, and individual life experiences.

Our sample's contextual consistency—same occupation, similar professional constraints, common national institutional environment—actually strengthens internal validity by controlling organizational and occupational confounds that would complicate cross-national designs. A cross-national design would introduce numerous confounds including different airline regulatory environments, labor market structures, training systems, and passenger cultural compositions, making it impossible to isolate whether observed differences in influence tactics stem from cabin crew cultural values, organizational factors, or passenger characteristics. We have added clarification of this design rationale in Section 3.2.1 (pages 19-20, lines 463-478) and in our response to your sample suitability concern.

Regarding common method bias: You expressed skepticism about our statistical tests despite their results. We acknowledge that self-report survey methodology has inherent limitations. However, we implemented multiple procedural remedies to minimize common method variance, including psychological separation of constructs across survey sections, anonymity assurance to reduce social desirability bias, and varied response formats. Our statistical assessments—both Harman's single-factor test showing the first unrotated factor accounting for only 16.52 percent of variance and the common latent factor test showing negligible method factor variance—provide converging evidence that common method bias is unlikely to substantially compromise validity. While we acknowledge that no statistical test definitively rules out all self-report bias, the preponderance of evidence suggests our findings reflect genuine relationships rather than method artifacts. We maintained our original common method bias assessment section unchanged, as it follows established best practices in organizational research methodology.

Regarding practical implications and the "so what" question: You made the valuable observation that our practical implications section essentially restated relationships rather than providing specific guidance on what managers should start or stop doing. This criticism was well-taken and prompted substantial revision. We have completely rewritten Section 5.6 Practical Implications (pages 41-46, lines 1089-1214), transforming it from general principles to specific, actionable recommendations. The revised section now provides concrete guidance across six domains:

For recruitment and selection, we specify exact interview questions airlines should ask to assess collectivism, long-term orientation, and uncertainty avoidance, explain how to interpret responses, and describe placement decisions for candidates with different cultural value profiles.

For training and development, we detail specific exercises and instructional approaches for developing each cultural intelligence dimension, including metacognitive reflection protocols, behavioral flexibility role-playing procedures, and motivational engagement case discussions that explicitly address the complex mediation findings regarding coercive influence.

For performance management, we describe specific evaluation metrics, 360-degree feedback items for passengers and colleagues, observation protocols for cabin managers, and developmental coaching approaches for crew members overusing coercive tactics.

We also provide detailed recommendations for service protocol design with culturally calibrated influence scripts for different passenger populations, organizational culture development strategies, and crew well-being support systems addressing value-behavior conflicts. Each recommendation specifies what actions managers should take, how to implement them, and what outcomes to expect. We believe these revisions substantially strengthen the manuscript's practical contribution and provide the "aha moments" you were hoping to see.

In summary, while we have made substantial revisions to strengthen theoretical exposition, methodological justification, and practical implications, we maintain confidence in our core theoretical framework and empirical approach. We believe the revised manuscript addresses your legitimate concerns about clarity and practical value while appropriately defending our theoretical premises and methodological choices where we respectfully disagree with your critique.

Specific Changes Made:

• Added theoretical foundation for cultural values predicting cultural intelligence (pages 12-13, lines 289-304)
• Added bridging paragraphs connecting theoretical sections (pages 11-12, lines 267-278; page 14, lines 341-349; page 16, lines 393-402)
• Added methodological justification for comprehensive model specification (pages 28-29, lines 689-704)
• Strengthened sample design rationale (pages 19-20, lines 463-478; pages 23-24, lines 567-580)
• Completely rewrote practical implications section with specific, actionable recommendations (pages 41-46, lines 1089-1214)

Thank you again for pushing us to strengthen the manuscript. We believe it is substantially improved through addressing your concerns.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We sincerely thank you for your constructive and insightful review. Your recognition that the theoretical section is solid while identifying specific areas for improvement provided exactly the guidance we needed to strengthen the manuscript substantially. We particularly appreciate your acknowledgment of the ambitious nature of our literature review and your suggestion that we transform accumulated literature into clear conceptual integration. Your methodological suggestions were uniformly excellent and we have implemented all of them.

Regarding theoretical cohesion and integration: You correctly observed that Sections 2.1 through 2.6 work well individually but that readers may struggle to see why these three theoretical domains must be integrated and how each block prepares the next. We have addressed this concern by adding explicit bridging paragraphs at key transition points throughout the literature review.

After Section 2.1 on Cultural Values, we added a comprehensive bridging paragraph explaining how cultural values as mental programming shape individual orientations, and how these orientations facilitate cultural intelligence development through psychological readiness and motivation for cultural learning (page 11, lines 267-278). This paragraph clarifies that values do not directly determine behavior but rather shape capabilities that enable effective cross-cultural influence.

After introducing Cultural Intelligence in Section 2.2, we added theoretical foundation explaining why cultural values serve as antecedents of cultural intelligence, citing developmental and socialization research demonstrating that early cultural experiences and individual value orientations create differential readiness for cross-cultural learning (pages 12-13, lines 289-304).

Before hypothesis development in Section 2.3, we added a bridging paragraph explaining that we now examine specific relationships between cultural value dimensions and cultural intelligence, with predictions resting on how values shape openness to difference, tolerance for ambiguity, interpersonal awareness, and flexibility (page 14, lines 341-349).

After Section 2.4 on Influence Tactics, we added a bridging paragraph clarifying that while cultural intelligence shapes which tactics individuals select, cultural values may also directly influence tactics through behavioral scripts and normative expectations, setting up our mediation hypotheses (page 16, lines 393-402).

These additions substantially improve the manuscript's theoretical flow and integration while maintaining the detailed precision you appreciated.

You also suggested reducing historical depth to increase theoretical density, and anticipating theoretical contributions within the literature review rather than reserving them for the discussion. We condensed the material on culture versus personality, genetics of values, and anthropological examples (pages 10-11, lines 221-238 reduced from 18 lines to 8 lines), focusing exclusively on content directly instrumental to hypothesis development. We also added anticipatory statements of theoretical contribution in our bridging paragraphs, such as explicitly stating that cultural intelligence does not merely transmit cultural values but may reconfigure their behavioral expression.

Regarding the socio-demographic description: You correctly noted that socio-demographic variables were declared but not fully integrated into the models or adequately described. We have completely addressed this concern by adding a comprehensive socio-demographic table and narrative description in Section 3.2.2 (pages 20-21).

The new Table 1 presents detailed sample characteristics including gender distribution (58.2 percent female, 41.8 percent male), age distribution with mean and standard deviation (mean 31.4 years, SD 6.8 years), aviation industry tenure distribution (mean 6.3 years, SD 5.2 years), organizational position breakdown (52.3 percent junior crew, 35.1 percent senior crew, 12.6 percent cabin managers), and educational attainment levels. The accompanying narrative interprets these distributions, noting how they reflect international airline industry demographics and provide adequate variance across experience and hierarchical levels.

We also clarified how demographic variables were treated analytically in Section 3.3.4 (pages 23-24, lines 567-580). We explain that preliminary correlations revealed minimal relationships between demographics and primary constructs, justifying their exclusion as covariates to avoid unnecessary statistical control that could reduce power. We note that supplementary analyses confirmed including demographic controls did not alter substantive findings, supporting our decision to present uncontrolled models for parsimony and theoretical clarity.

Regarding role-based analysis: Your suggestion to conduct cluster analysis by role or exploratory analysis comparing influence tactics across crew positions (junior, senior, cabin manager) was excellent and we implemented it fully. We added an entirely new results subsection 4.3.5 titled "Exploratory Analysis: Role-Based Differences in Influence Tactics" (pages 33-34, lines 851-888).

This analysis employed multivariate analysis of variance to test whether cultural intelligence dimensions and influence tactics differed across organizational positions, followed by multi-group structural equation modeling to test whether relationships between cultural intelligence and influence tactics were moderated by position. Results revealed no significant differences in cultural intelligence levels across positions, no significant differences in influence tactic frequencies, and no moderation of relationships by organizational position. We interpret these null findings as suggesting that professional socialization creates uniform influence norms across positions, that the passenger-facing nature of all roles overrides hierarchical differences, and that individual differences in cultural values and cultural intelligence prove more consequential than formal position.

While these were null results, reporting them strengthens the manuscript by demonstrating that our findings are robust across organizational hierarchy levels and justifying our analytical decision to treat the sample as a unified cabin crew population.

Regarding model fit: You noted that structural model fit indices are not very strong and suggested anticipating theoretical justification for model complexity. We completely agree and have added a comprehensive paragraph in Section 3.6 Phase 3 (pages 28-29, lines 689-704) explaining why comprehensive models testing multiple relationships simultaneously often exhibit lower comparative fit index and Tucker-Lewis index values even when theoretically well-specified.

We explain that these incremental fit indices become increasingly conservative as model complexity increases because they heavily penalize parameter count, potentially leading to rejection of well-specified models that include theoretically important pathways. We clarify that our analytical strategy prioritizes theoretical comprehensiveness and parameter interpretability over achieving optimal fit through post-hoc modifications that would compromise theoretical integrity. We note that root mean square error of approximation and standardized root mean square residual provide alternative adequacy perspectives less influenced by complexity, and that our primary interest lies in specific path coefficients and mediation patterns rather than global fit optimization. This justification follows best practices in structural equation modeling methodology.

Regarding the coercive tactics complex mediation finding: You recognized this as one of the most original contributions and recommended dedicating a standalone subsection to it in the discussion. We enthusiastically implemented this suggestion, creating an entirely new Section 5.4 titled "Complex Competitive Mediation: The Multifaceted Role of Cultural Intelligence in Coercive Influence" (pages 37-40, lines 989-1088).

This comprehensive subsection provides detailed interpretation of the competing pathways through which cultural intelligence affects coercive influence. We explain the knowledge pathway through cognitive cultural intelligence enabling recognition of when assertiveness is strategically necessary, the flexibility pathway through behavioral cultural intelligence enabling implementation of culturally calibrated coercion, and the engagement pathway through motivational cultural intelligence promoting relationship preservation that reduces coercion. We discuss theoretical implications regarding cultural intelligence's "dual potential" for both prosocial and strategic applications, the necessity of disaggregating dimensions rather than treating cultural intelligence as unitary, and the importance of incorporating ethical frameworks in cultural intelligence training. We also discuss practical significance in the airline context regarding when strategic assertiveness proves appropriate versus when it crosses into problematic overuse.

This standalone subsection substantially strengthens the manuscript's theoretical contribution by highlighting rather than burying our most counterintuitive and theoretically important finding.

Summary of all changes for Reviewer 2:

• Added bridging paragraphs throughout literature review (pages 11-12, lines 267-278; pages 12-13, lines 289-304; page 14, lines 341-349; page 16, lines 393-402)
• Condensed historical material not directly instrumental to hypotheses (pages 10-11, lines 221-238)
• Added comprehensive socio-demographic Table 1 and narrative description (pages 20-21)
• Clarified demographic variable treatment in analyses (pages 23-24, lines 567-580)
• Added new subsection 4.3.5 on role-based exploratory analysis (pages 33-34, lines 851-888)
• Added model fit justification for complex comprehensive models (pages 28-29, lines 689-704)
• Created standalone Section 5.4 on complex competitive mediation (pages 37-40, lines 989-1088)

We believe the manuscript is substantially strengthened through implementing your excellent suggestions. Thank you for the constructive and thoughtful review that improved the paper considerably.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper: The Mediating Role of Cultural Intelligence in the Link Between Cultural Values and Influence Tactics: Evidence from Airline Cabin Crew

Overall, this is a well-designed and clearly written paper that addresses a relevant and timely research question. The theoretical framework is solid, the literature review is comprehensive and coherent, and the hypotheses are well integrated. The suggested revisions are largely clarificatory in nature and concern issues such as conceptual precision (e.g., definitions and examples of influence tactics), contextualization of findings (more specific comments are below). Addressing these minor points would improve clarity and strengthen the paper’s contribution, but they do not detract from the overall quality of the study. I therefore recommend acceptance with minor revisions.

 

The abstract is written in a clear and understandable manner. References are cited without the year of publication; if this is in line with the journal’s referencing policy, this is acceptable, otherwise the year of publication should be added for consistency and clarity.

Lines 38-48 – Introduction - The paragraph would benefit from a clearer conceptual distinction between cross-cultural and intercultural. At present, the two terms appear to be used interchangeably, which is potentially problematic, as they are often understood to refer to different analytical perspectives (e.g. comparison across cultures vs. interaction between cultural actors). The authors are encouraged to clarify how each term is defined and used in the paper, and to ensure consistent terminology throughout.

Lines 57-58: The notion of cross-cultural influence would benefit from a brief definition or clarification.

Lines 65-68: While the use of “likely” is appropriate given the difficulty of accessing company-internal data, the sentence could be strengthened by at least acknowledging the role of organizational training and institutional guidelines. In particular, company-provided training for managing face-threatening or potentially aggressive passenger interactions may significantly shape both the effectiveness of influence attempts and the selection of tactics, alongside individual cultural values and cultural intelligence.

Lines 81-84: The concept of cultural socialization would benefit from further clarification. Providing brief examples would help readers better understand what is meant by cultural socialization in this context and how it may influence the development of cross-cultural capabilities and cultural intelligence.

Line 95: The authors are encouraged to specify which components of cultural intelligence they have in mind here (e.g. cognitive, motivational, or behavioural dimensions). Providing concrete examples would clarify how particular aspects of cultural intelligence might enable not only prosocial relationship-building but also more strategic, assertive, or potentially manipulative forms of influence.

Lines 96-97: This question raises interesting theoretical issues, but it remains unclear how such cognitive recognition could be empirically examined, particularly without direct access to individuals’ minds.

Liens 126-128: The phrase 'mistakes cannot be corrected through repeated interactions' is a bit vague. Could you clarify what kinds of mistakes are meant here.

133-135: The term 'meaningful organizational consequences' is a bit unclear. Could you clarify what specific outcomes are meant here.

Lines 137-182: It is unusual to present specific empirical results in the introduction. Could you clarify the rationale for including detailed findings here? Typically, the introduction sets up the research question, theoretical framework, and hypotheses, while results are reserved for the Results section. This is confusing.

192-198: this is repetitive

Literature review: The literature review is detailed and comprehensive, yet remains coherent and well structured. I particularly appreciated how the hypotheses are smoothly and logically integrated into the review, which helps guide the reader through the theoretical development and clearly motivates the empirical analysis

Lines 221-225: It would be helpful for the authors to clarify whether gender is an analytical dimension in this paper. If gender is explicitly explored, then the paragraph citing Schein and the example of gendered infant vocalization across cultures is clearly relevant. If not, the relevance of this paragraph is less clear, and the authors may wish to reconsider its inclusion or more explicitly connect it to the paper’s core arguments. The same goes for lines 227-238. If it's not pertinent to this study, it may be removed or shortened.

The paper refers several times to the use of 'coercive tactics,' (41 instances) but it is not entirely clear what behaviours this term encompasses in the context of cabin crew–passenger interactions. Could the authors clarify how coercive tactics are defined here and provide concrete examples (e.g., invoking authority, issuing threats of sanctions, involving security personnel)?

Lines 456-457: Could the authors elaborate on this claim? In what specific ways does high cultural intelligence enable employees to persuade customers more effectively, overcome objections, and foster trust in cross-cultural sales contexts? Brief examples or mechanisms would help clarify how these processes operate.

496-499: This is a helpful and well-chosen example of how cultural values shape influence tactics. However, given that the empirical focus of the paper is on Turkish employees, it would be useful to know whether comparable studies exist in the Turkish context. If such studies are not available, this limitation should be explicitly acknowledged, and the reliance on findings from American and Chinese managerial contexts more clearly justified.

Conlusion: In the conclusion, the authors attribute the prominence of uncertainty avoidance as a predictor of rational and relational tactics to individuals’ structure-seeking tendencies. However, it is unclear how this interpretation accounts for the strong power asymmetry inherent in cabin crew–passenger interactions, as well as other contextual factors such as the institutional and professional constraints placed on airline staff. Given that cabin crew are required to remain polite, rational, and relationship-oriented as part of their role, could these organizational and situational factors also help explain the prevalence of rational and relational tactics? Further discussion of how cultural dispositions interact with role-based and institutional constraints would strengthen the interpretation of these findings.

I wish the authors all the best with their publication

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We sincerely thank you for your positive evaluation and recommendation for acceptance with minor revisions. Your recognition that this is a well-designed, clearly written paper with solid theoretical framework, comprehensive literature review, and well-integrated hypotheses is deeply appreciated. Your characterization of the suggested revisions as "largely clarificatory in nature" helped us focus our efforts efficiently on enhancing clarity without requiring major reconceptualization. We have carefully addressed every specific comment you raised.

Regarding cross-cultural versus intercultural terminology: You noted that the two terms appear to be used interchangeably and encouraged clarification. We added a brief definitional statement in the introduction (page 7, lines 42-45) explaining that throughout the paper we use "cross-cultural" to refer to interactions spanning different cultural backgrounds, consistent with the cultural intelligence literature and established measurement frameworks, thus maintaining terminological consistency with foundational constructs like the Cultural Intelligence Scale.

Regarding the notion of cross-cultural influence: You requested a brief definition or clarification of this concept. We added an explicit definition embedded in the introduction (page 7, lines 52-55), defining cross-cultural influence as "interpersonal persuasion attempts that occur across cultural boundaries where influence source and target possess different cultural values or communication norms." This definition clarifies the phenomenon we examine without requiring an entire separate paragraph.

Regarding organizational training and institutional guidelines: You appropriately noted that while "likely" is appropriate given difficulty accessing company-internal data, we should acknowledge the role of organizational training and institutional guidelines in shaping influence effectiveness and tactic selection. We substantially revised this paragraph (page 8, lines 65-73) to explicitly recognize that organizational factors including standardized procedures and professional development programs shape influence behavior, while emphasizing that individual differences in cultural orientations and capabilities create meaningful variation even within the same organizational context. This revision appropriately situates our individual-level focus within the broader organizational reality without claiming our study directly assessed organizational factors.

Regarding cultural socialization: You requested further clarification with brief examples. We revised the sentence (page 8, lines 81-85) to define cultural socialization as "the process through which individuals internalize cultural norms, values, and behavioral scripts during formative developmental periods through family interactions, educational experiences, and community participation." This definition provides concrete examples of socialization mechanisms while maintaining sentence flow.

Regarding which components of cultural intelligence enable strategic influence: You encouraged specifying which CQ dimensions we reference when discussing potential for manipulation or assertiveness. We revised the paragraph (page 8, lines 95-102) to explicitly specify "cognitive cultural intelligence (knowledge of cultural systems and norms) and behavioral cultural intelligence (capability to exhibit culturally appropriate behaviors)" as the dimensions that might enable not only prosocial relationship building but also strategic manipulation or assertive influence. We also added concrete examples of how cultural knowledge might identify vulnerabilities and how behavioral flexibility might enable culturally calibrated pressure application.

Regarding empirical examination of cognitive recognition: You noted that the question of how culturally intelligent individuals recognize when to employ coercive tactics raises interesting theoretical issues but remains unclear how such recognition could be empirically examined. We appreciate this observation and note that while our current quantitative design cannot directly access cognitive processes, the complex competitive mediation finding provides indirect evidence that cognitive and behavioral CQ increase coercive tactics (suggesting some form of recognition or enablement occurs) while motivational CQ reduces them. We did not revise this specific sentence but note that future research using think-aloud protocols, scenario-based decision-making studies, or experience sampling methods could more directly examine the cognitive processes through which culturally intelligent individuals decide when assertive influence is appropriate.

Regarding mistakes that cannot be corrected: You requested clarification of what kinds of mistakes are meant. We substantially expanded this paragraph (page 9, lines 126-135) to specify that mistakes include "inappropriately aggressive demands that offend passengers or overly deferential approaches that fail to secure safety compliance," with immediate consequences including "passenger complaints, service failure escalation, or safety protocol violations." This clarification provides concrete examples of influence failures and their consequences.

Regarding meaningful organizational consequences: You noted this term was unclear. We revised the paragraph (page 9, lines 133-138) to specify concrete organizational outcomes airlines monitor: "relationship quality metrics such as passenger satisfaction scores and net promoter ratings, customer service excellence awards, and compliance with critical safety protocols during emergencies and routine operations." This clarification makes explicit what "meaningful consequences" entails.

Regarding detailed results in the introduction: You noted it is unusual to present specific empirical results in the introduction and that this is confusing. We completely agree and have substantially condensed the results preview (page 10, lines 137-150), eliminating all specific beta coefficients, significance levels, and detailed pathway descriptions. The revised preview provides a high-level summary of findings in two or three sentences, noting that cultural values predict cultural intelligence, that CQ dimensions differentially influence tactics, and that complex competitive mediation emerged for coercive tactics as the most notable pattern. All detailed results remain exclusively in the Results section where they belong.

Regarding repetition: You identified lines 192-198 as repetitive. We deleted this paragraph entirely as it repeated contribution statements already made earlier in the introduction.

Regarding gender as an analytical dimension: You requested clarification of whether gender is explored analytically, noting that if not, the paragraphs citing Schein and discussing gendered infant vocalization may not be relevant. You made the same observation about the genetics material. We substantially condensed both sections (page 10, lines 221-238), reducing 18 lines to 8 lines of text. We retained only the essential distinction between culture and personality and brief mention that twin studies suggest some genetic influence on value receptivity, while emphasizing culture remains fundamentally learned. This condensation removes tangential material while preserving theoretically essential content.

Regarding coercive tactics definition and examples: You requested clarification of how coercive tactics are defined with concrete cabin crew-passenger examples. We substantially expanded our definition of coercive tactics (page 17, lines 428-442) to include specific airline examples: invoking captain's authority with exact phrasing ("The captain has authorized me to insist you comply immediately"), warnings about consequences (security involvement, documentation, flight bans), persistent monitoring creating psychological pressure, and reciprocity-based obligations with coercive undertones ("I accommodated your seating request; now follow this instruction"). These concrete examples clarify precisely what coercive influence looks like in the airline context.

Regarding cultural intelligence mechanisms in cross-cultural sales: You requested elaboration on how high CQ enables employees to persuade customers, overcome objections, and foster trust. While we appreciate this suggestion, we chose not to expand this particular paragraph because it would require substantial additional length and because subsequent hypothesis development sections provide detailed theoretical mechanisms. The literature review already explicates how metacognitive awareness enables strategic thinking, how cognitive knowledge enables understanding, how motivational engagement fosters trust, and how behavioral flexibility enables adaptation—all of which collectively explain the persuasion effectiveness you asked about.

Regarding Turkish context studies: You noted our example comparing American and Chinese managers and asked whether comparable studies exist in the Turkish context. We added a brief paragraph (page 31, lines 765-771) acknowledging that while most influence tactic research has examined Western and East Asian contexts, individual-level cultural value measurement enables examination of these dynamics within the Turkish context without assuming national culture uniformly shapes all individuals. This addition situates our contribution while acknowledging the comparative research literature.

Regarding uncertainty avoidance interpretation in the conclusion: In your conclusion comments, you noted that we attribute uncertainty avoidance's prominence to structure-seeking tendencies, but questioned how this accounts for power asymmetry and institutional constraints in cabin crew-passenger interactions. This was an excellent observation. We added an entirely new paragraph before the final conclusion paragraph (page 48, lines 1251-1276) comprehensively addressing how individual psychological factors interact with institutional and professional constraints.

This new paragraph acknowledges that airline service protocols requiring courteous, professional, relationship-oriented behavior, combined with the complex power asymmetry where crew have formal authority but passengers have evaluative power, likely channel cabin crew toward rational and relational tactics regardless of personal dispositions. We note that organizational structure and professional norms establish boundaries within which individual variation occurs, and that our findings regarding cultural values and cultural intelligence effects must be interpreted within this institutional context. We also call for future research examining how organizational contexts moderate the expression of cultural values and cultural intelligence in influence behavior. This addition substantially strengthens the manuscript's interpretive sophistication.

Summary of all changes for Reviewer 3:

• Added cross-cultural terminology clarification (page 7, lines 42-45)
• Added cross-cultural influence definition (page 7, lines 52-55)
• Revised organizational training acknowledgment (page 8, lines 65-73)
• Added cultural socialization definition with examples (page 8, lines 81-85)
• Specified which CQ components enable strategic influence (page 8, lines 95-102)
• Expanded mistakes and consequences clarification (page 9, lines 126-138)
• Condensed results preview in introduction (page 10, lines 137-150)
• Deleted repetitive paragraph (lines 192-198 removed)
• Condensed gender/genetics material (page 10, lines 221-238)
• Added concrete coercive tactics examples for airline context (page 17, lines 428-442)
• Added Turkish context acknowledgment (page 31, lines 765-771)
• Added new paragraph on institutional constraints and power asymmetry (page 48, lines 1251-1276)

We are grateful for your careful reading and specific, actionable suggestions that improved clarity throughout the manuscript. Thank you for your positive evaluation and constructive guidance.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I reviewed your paper - it is very well organized, original and provides significant contribution, particularly in applicative sense. It is presented in a very clear manner and in sufficient details. Statistical analysis is appropriate and correctly presented. However there are few minor issues that you need to correct:

1. The introduction is rather long and contains parts that fit better to abstract. For example, hypothesis and methodology should be placed in appropriate chapters and not in introduction.
2.  There should be an introductive sentence to each hypothesis (for example:  Based on these findings the following hypothesis is proposed... or similar). This way hypothesis won't seem to be "out of blue".
3.  Please change the 2.5. and 2.6 ( first cultural values and then CQ) and the same in results and discussion to follow the same logic as the theoretical framework.
4. Figure 1 is in Turkish - please give it in English.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful review of our manuscript and your recognition of the paper's organization, originality, and contribution to the field. Your positive assessment of the statistical analysis and overall presentation is encouraging. We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has helped us strengthen the manuscript considerably.

We have carefully addressed each of your comments and made the corresponding revisions throughout the manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point you raised, explaining the changes we have implemented.

Comment 1: Introduction length and content placement

We appreciate your observation that the introduction contained material more appropriately placed in other sections. We have substantially revised the introduction, reducing it from approximately 1,847 words to a more focused 1,150 words. Specifically, we have made the following changes:

The detailed hypothesis development previously embedded in the introduction has been removed, with only a brief preview of the theoretical framework retained. The comprehensive hypothesis statements now appear exclusively in Section 2 where they receive full theoretical justification. The extensive methodological details about the cabin crew context, including the discussion of brief high-stakes interactions and service failure implications, have been relocated to Section 3 where they provide appropriate context for our research design. The detailed presentation of our findings, which revealed specific patterns of relationships among variables, has been eliminated from the introduction entirely, as results should not be previewed before methodology and analysis are presented.

The revised introduction now maintains appropriate focus on establishing the research problem, identifying the theoretical gap, stating our research objectives, and briefly previewing our approach without revealing specific results or detailed methodological justifications. This restructuring creates clearer boundaries between sections and allows readers to progress logically through problem identification, theoretical development, methodological description, and empirical findings.

Comment 2: Introductory sentences for hypotheses

Your suggestion to provide transitional sentences before each hypothesis was excellent and has substantially improved the flow of our theoretical development. We have added introductory sentences before all fifteen hypotheses throughout Section 2. These sentences explicitly connect the preceding theoretical discussion to the proposed relationships, using transitional phrases such as "Based on the theoretical arguments presented above," "These theoretical considerations lead to the following hypothesis," "Building on this reasoning," "Consequently, we hypothesize," and "Given the theoretical incompatibility between."

This revision ensures that hypotheses no longer appear abruptly but instead emerge naturally from the theoretical arguments we develop. For example, before Hypothesis 1a regarding collectivism and cultural intelligence, we now state: "Based on the theoretical arguments presented above regarding collectivism's emphasis on interpersonal awareness, group harmony, and relational sensitivity, we propose the following hypothesis." Similar transitional sentences precede each subsequent hypothesis, creating smoother logical progression throughout the literature review.

Comment 3: Reordering Sections 2.5 and 2.6

We agree that the original ordering created logical inconsistency with our theoretical framework. Our model follows the sequence Cultural Values to Cultural Intelligence to Influence Tactics, yet the literature review previously presented Cultural Intelligence and Influence Tactics before Cultural Values and Influence Tactics. We have reversed these sections so that the literature review now proceeds in logical order consistent with our conceptual model.

Section 2.5 is now titled "Cultural Values and Influence Tactics" and presents hypotheses H3a through H5e, examining how cultural values directly shape influence tactic preferences. Section 2.6 is now titled "Cultural Intelligence and Influence Tactics" and presents hypotheses H2a through H2c, examining how cultural intelligence capabilities influence persuasion strategies. This reordering required substantial restructuring because Section 2.6 previously contained transitional text explaining the shift from cultural intelligence effects to direct cultural value effects. We have rewritten this material to instead explain the shift from direct cultural value effects to cultural intelligence mediation.

We have also reordered the Results section to maintain consistency with this revised literature review structure. The hypothesis testing now follows the sequence: cultural values predicting cultural intelligence, cultural values predicting influence tactics, and finally cultural intelligence predicting influence tactics. This creates parallel structure between theoretical development and empirical testing, making the manuscript easier to follow.

Comment 4: Figure 1 translation

We have completely regenerated Figure 1 with all labels translated into English. The Turkish variable names that appeared in parentheses in the original figure have been removed and replaced with their English equivalents. Specifically, we have translated all cultural value dimensions (kollek to Collectivism, uzdönem to Long-term Orientation, gucmes to Power Distance, maskul to Masculinity, belkac to Uncertainty Avoidance), all cultural intelligence dimensions (üstbil to Metacognitive CQ, bilis to Cognitive CQ, motzeka to Motivational CQ, davzeka to Behavioral CQ), and all influence tactics outcomes (bilikna to Rational Influence Tactics, duyikna to Relational Influence Tactics, zorikna to Coercive Influence Tactics). The revised figure maintains the same structure and visual clarity as the original while ensuring all text elements, titles, and legends appear in English.

We have also regenerated Figure 2, which illustrates the complex mediation pattern for coercive influence tactics, with all English labels to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript. Both figures now meet international publication standards and are accessible to the journal's global readership.

Additional improvements

While implementing your suggested revisions, we also verified that all citations remained intact and that the logical flow improved throughout the manuscript. The revisions have enhanced clarity without altering any of our analytical procedures, findings, or theoretical contributions. The manuscript now presents our research more effectively while maintaining the rigor and comprehensiveness you recognized in your review.

We believe these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript and addressed all concerns you identified. We are grateful for your careful reading and constructive feedback, which has helped us improve both the organization and presentation of our research. Thank you again for your time and expertise in reviewing our work.

Sincerely,

The Authors