<![CDATA[Purpose – This study examines how employees implement Cultural Intelligence (CQ) in everyday cross-cultural work practices within Company X, a multinational engineering/EPC organization with an engineering design unit in Indonesia. The study addresses how the four CQ dimensions are enacted, how their implementation varies across Unit A (Headquarters), Unit B (Middle East Operations), Malaysia, and Thailand, which contextual factors shape implementation, and how CQ supports cross-cultural collaboration. Design/methodology/approach – A deductive qualitative comparative case-study design was used, with the Four-Dimensional CQ Model serving as the analytical lens. Data were obtained primarily through in-depth semi-structured interviews with nine purposively selected employees representing engineering and supporting functions. Interview evidence was organized through deductive thematic analysis and supported by NVivo coding. The empirical evidence base for the findings reported here is entirely interview-based; field notes were consulted only as contextual background and are not presented as an independent source of evidence. Findings – All four CQ dimensions were evident, but they were embedded in ordinary professional activities rather than treated as separate intercultural events. Metacognitive CQ was expressed through preparation, monitoring, reflection, and assumption checking. Cognitive CQ extended beyond national cultural knowledge to organizational, technical, regulatory, and professional knowledge. Motivational CQ appeared through learning orientation, persistence, professional responsibility, and continued engagement. Behavioural CQ was highly visible through adaptive communication, formality, documentation, feedback, virtual coordination, and stakeholder management. The findings further indicate that the same CQ capability may be enacted differently depending on interaction context and professional role. Research limitations – The study is bounded by a single multinational engineering organization, nine participants, and a qualitative design. The evidence base is entirely interview-based. The study does not quantitatively measure CQ or establish causal relationships between CQ and project performance. Malaysia and Thailand were also represented by more limited context-specific evidence than India and KSA. Implications – The findings suggest that IHRM can support CQ through role-based development, cross-cultural onboarding, mentoring and experiential learning, leadership development, virtual collaboration guidelines, developmental career conversations, and international exposure. CQ development is better treated as a continuous capability-building process than as a one-time cultural awareness intervention. Originality – Beyond documenting qualitative evidence in an engineering/EPC setting, the study’s main theoretical contribution is to reframe CQ as a professionally enacted capability whose four dimensions are triggered and sequenced by features of the professional task rather than by cultural difference alone, and it derives testable propositions for future research from this reframing. It also demonstrates how CQ varies across multiple operational contexts within one organization while preserving the established four-dimensional theoretical structure.]]>
