The ‘cultural intelligence’ concept was developed by Ang et al. (2007) with the purpose of measuring and predicting intercultural interactions. The concept was conceived at the turn of the 21st century when the world was experiencing unprecedented globalisation and interconnectedness (Colom & Román, 2018). Dogra (2016) notes that cultural intelligence is positively associated with good communication skills, job satisfaction, cultural adaptation, behavioural adjustment, and sound judgement and decision making. This implies self-awareness and having insight into one’s own behaviour.

Solomon and Steyn (2017) view cultural intelligence as a non-academic intelligence that portrays a person’s competence in functioning effortlessly in culturally diverse environments. Rüth and Netzer (2020) highlight the crucial role of cultural intelligence in predicting managerial success in intercultural settings. It is imperative that managers be culturally intelligent, as they need to set an example for employees. Moreover, cultural intelligence facilitates the training of employees and the adaptation of organisational processes to promote better intercultural understanding (Stokes, 2014).

According to Ang et al. (2007), cultural intelligence has four dimensions, namely metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioural. Metacognitive cultural intelligence enables the analysis, regulation, and comprehension of knowledge. Cognitive cultural intelligence involves an individual’s factual understanding of general and specific knowledge of the norms, values, and practices associated with different countries (Jiony et al., 2021). Motivational cultural intelligence pertains to the inclination to actively engage in, guide, and sustain one’s enthusiasm for acquiring knowledge and effectively operate within culturally diverse contexts and undertakings (Kundu & Mor, 2017). Behavioural cultural intelligence refers to the individual capacity to engage with individuals from diverse backgrounds through verbal and non- verbal means (Hassan et al., 2020).

Because of the complexity of the cultural intelligence construct and the measurement of two highly individual constructs (cultural intelligence and service delivery) in this study, the article focuses on metacognitive cultural intelligence as it relates to the ways in which employees think about their learning (Ang et al. 2007; Jiony et al. 2021; Le et al., 2021).

Service delivery entails the provision of services by an establishment that requires collective effort from a variety of employees. The process involves various stages including introductory dialogue, onboarding, configuration, service fulfilment, and follow-up provisions (Othman et al., 2019).

Alomari (2021) asserts that customers within the service sectors exhibit interest not only in the outcomes of service delivery processes, but also in the way the services are delivered. This rationale is in line with the foundation of the SERVQUAL model as developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988). The SERVQUAL model was deemed suitable for this study because of the inherent connection between service quality and service delivery. The model comprises five distinct dimensions, namely tangibles, empathy, assurance, reliability, and responsiveness. These are discussed further in the text.

Tangibles are the well-kept surroundings, equipment, and staff, which pertain to all physical aspects that have an impact on the level of service provided to customers (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Empathy refers to the extent to which organisations demonstrate care, focus on their clientele, and provide personalised attention to customers. Empathy also pertains to the capacity to deliver assured services with accuracy and dependability. This, in turn, relates to customer engagement, problem solving, empathy, addressing customer concerns and anxieties, fostering a sense of solidarity, and ensuring customer retention (Parasuraman et al., 1988).

The third dimension, assurance, is the ability of organisations to instil confidence and trust in customers by means of the knowledge and courtesy displayed by their service staff (Parasuraman et al., 1988). This relates closely to the fourth dimension, namely reliability, which pertains to the ability to deliver the promised service consistently and accurately. Lastly, responsiveness refers to the willingness of an organisation to assist customers and deliver expeditious service. The assessment of responsiveness can be conducted through the use of inquiries, such as gauging the extent to which an organisation’s inquisitiveness aligns with the challenges faced by its clientele, evaluating the organisation’s proficiency in assisting customers in resolving issues, and examining the organisation’s receptiveness towards general complaints and customer grievances (Parasuraman et al., 1988).

Customer service is the primary source of competitive advantage within the hospitality industry. Front-line employees are thus widely regarded as the most critical asset of any service organisation, fulfilling a crucial part in attaining and maintaining a competitive advantage. Consequently, it is imperative for organisations to acknowledge the significance of their employees in effectively representing and strengthening the brand identity of the establishment, as well as ensuring the accurate delivery of services (Vance, 2006).

For the outer model, the following assessments of reliability and validity were performed: indicator reliability, internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (Amora, 2021), which are explained further in the text.

Indicator reliability relates to the extent to which a measurement item reliably reflects the underlying construct (Hulland, 1999). According to Hair et al. (2017), the outer loadings of the indicator should exceed 0.70. Thus, the following indicators, ASS1, MCG6, and REL3, with loadings below 0.70, were removed from the measurement model. Table 1 shows that all indicator loadings were above the 0.7 threshold. It can be concluded that the measurement model exhibited indicator reliability.

Internal consistency reliability measures the consistency of the measuring instrument using composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha (α). According to Gefen et al. (2000), the CR should be greater than 0.7 to indicate adequate internal consistency reliability and for α between 0.60 to 0.70. Table 2 shows that all constructs displayed an acceptable level of internal consistency reliability.

Convergent validity is the degree to which a measurement instrument demonstrates a positive correlation with other measures that assess the same underlying construct. This is achieved by measuring the average variance extracted (AVE) (Janadari et al., 2016). The AVE should be greater than 0.5 according to Bagozzi and Yi (1988) and Fornell and Larcker (1981). The AVE for assurance was 0.618; empathy, 0.614; metacognitive cultural intelligence, 0.679; reliability, 0.601; and tangibles, 0.637.

Discriminant validity describes the extent to which a construct is genuinely separate from other constructs based on empirical criteria (Hair et al., 2017). Heterotrait-heteromethod correlations (HTMT) compare the average correlations between indicators measuring different constructs and indicators measuring the same construct. The HTMT ratio should not be greater than 0.9 (Hair et al., 2017). Table 3 shows that 14 out of 15 HTMT ratios did not exceed the 0.9 threshold. It can therefore be concluded that the measurement model exhibited discriminant validity.

The assessment of the structural models of the study was conducted in two steps, as explained further in the text.

Metacognitive cultural intelligence requires individuals to be active participants in intercultural settings by continuously organising, monitoring, and adapting their thinking processes (Ang et al., 2007). The findings of the study (see Figure 2) revealed that metacognitive cultural intelligence had a statistically significant negative relationship with all the service delivery variables: assurance (β = –0.360, p < 0.001), empathy (β = –0.330, p < 0.001), reliability (β = –0.315, p < 0.001), responsiveness (β = –0.378, p < 0.001), and tangibles (β = –0.305, p < 0.001). Statistically negative relationships imply that the higher the one variable (metacognitive cultural intelligence), the lower the other variable (service delivery).

Contrary to the findings of this study, most research confirms that higher levels of cultural intelligence support organisational processes including service delivery. Tariq and Lorenz (2017) reported a significant increase of service failure because of disparities in cultural backgrounds between service employees and customers. Jiony et al. (2021) found that an increased understanding of cultural intelligence has a significant influence on the psychological capital of front-line employees, consequently impacting the overall quality of service.

Alshaibani (2015) found that metacognitive cultural intelligence predicts task performance, while Ang et al. (2007) found that metacognitive cultural intelligence supports cultural judgement and decision-making effectiveness. According to Ratasuk and Charoensukmongkol (2020), teams demonstrating elevated levels of cultural intelligence were found to be more engaged in team-sharing activities and received higher evaluations for being innovative compared to teams with low cultural intelligence. Similarly, Alshaibani (2015) established that front-line hospitality staff with higher levels of cultural intelligence engaged better with culturally diverse customers. They were also more inclined to offer guests a dependable and compassionate service, bolstering confidence and trust in the organisation. A positive correlation has also been found between high levels of cultural intelligence and the interactions and job performance of employees (Alshaibani, 2015).

Puyod and Charoensukmongkol (2019) observed that individuals with little work experience derived a significantly greater benefit from cultural intelligence compared to individuals with more work experience. Furthermore, Suthatorn and Charoensukmongkol (2018) suggested that employees who possess a higher degree of cultural intelligence exhibit not only proficient cross-cultural communication when interacting with customers from various cultural backgrounds, but also actively strive to meet customer expectations more effectively in comparison with individuals with a lower degree of cultural intelligence. Tariq and Lorenz (2017) support the notion that high cultural intelligence is a significant competency for effective cross-cultural service interactions.

Owing to the complexity of the cultural intelligence concept, this article focused only on metacognitive cultural intelligence and its impact on service delivery. A possible explanation for the statistically significant negative relationships found in this study is that metacognitive cultural intelligence relates to the thinking processes of individuals. The investigation did not consider the other cultural intelligence components, notably cognition (where individuals need to figure out what to do in an intercultural context), motivation (where individuals need to engage with the situation), and behaviour (where individuals need to enact appropriate behaviours) (Sternberg et al., 2022).

The study only reported on metacognitive cultural intelligence as one component of cultural intelligence. The findings thus relate only to the thinking processes of respondents. Although negative relationships were observed between metacognitive cultural intelligence and service delivery, they were still significant. These findings could indicate insufficient training and development, a relatively youthful workforce and inadequate educational qualifications.

As this study specifically focused on casual dining restaurants in Bloemfontein, South Africa, the findings cannot be generalised to other settings. To enhance the generalisability of future studies, it is suggested that a larger sample size be used, despite the potentially increased costs. It is further suggested that future research employ alternative methods of data gathering, such as conducting interviews, to gain a more in-depth understanding of the experiences of customers. A major challenge for the researchers was obtaining consent from casual dining establishments to participate in the study. The data gathering was also laborious and time-consuming.

A main recommendation from the study is for intercultural training and development in casual dining restaurants in Bloemfontein. This applies especially to younger staff with little work experience. The study supports the need for continuous soft skills training as an integral part of diversity management. This will allow the development of a greater level of understanding and sensitivity towards diverse customer attitudes and behaviours.