Journal of
Law and Conflict Resolution

  • Abbreviation: J. Law Conflict. Resolut
  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 2006-9804
  • DOI: 10.5897/JLCR
  • Start Year: 2009
  • Published Articles: 102

Full Length Research Paper

A model of cultural intelligence based on knowledge management practices and military intelligence: A comparative study between Moldova and Ukraine

Crisitano Trindade De Angelis
  • Crisitano Trindade De Angelis
  • Skema Business School, France.
  • Google Scholar

  •  Received: 28 July 2022
  •  Accepted: 26 September 2022
  •  Published: 28 February 2023


The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the development of Cultural Intelligence - CI through Knowledge Management - KM practices leads to Military Intelligence – MI (prediction, strategy and action). The model of CI based on KM practices and MI - CIKMMI, if applied successful, has potential to receive the United Nations Public Service Awards (UNPSA). The degree of the impact of Cultural Intelligence and Knowledge Management on Military Intelligence depends on the model of the Public Administration. Therefore this article suggests the shift from the New Public Management – NPM that leads to corruption to the New Public Service, based on Social Participation and Social Control. The nomological validity shows the evidence that the structural relationships among constructs, investigated through Structural Equation Modeling and interviews, is consistent with other studies.  This work concludes that the CIKMMI model is useful to identify how the learning by comparison with other values, believes and assumptions (CI) and use of KM Practices leads to the effectiveness of MI.


Key words: Cultural intelligence, knowledge management, military intelligence, public administration.


During the times of war, people from isolated ex-communist countries and pro-EU, such as Ukraine and Moldova, face a great challenge: develop cultural intelligence - the learning by comparison with other values, beliefs, assumptions and traditions - to reach maturity and face the Russian system that dominates economically and military the region even after the independence from the USSR.

The Russian empire has occupied parts of Ukraine and Moldova after inducing the population, without a minimum access to knowledge and experience, to speak the Russian language through economic, military (mainly) and political power. By giving Russian passports, free health care and other very good advantages, Russia Empire managed to send soldiers to both regions as if it were a legion of peace, the same strategy also used in the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. For 70 years, that is, at one point in the 20th century, the Russian power exported attitudes and behavior, ideology and reactions to the 15 republics and over 285 million people.


The coercive power of Russia came through the language, through the media, through literature, and of course, mainly, through the Military and Economic powers.


This excessive, distorted, completely abusive and politicized coercion plunged the population of the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine into a dark abyss, the tunnels of which give rise to the question, "Who resists the coercion of Russia the most?


Given the domination of Ukraine and the few population of Moldova, and also the isolation of these two countries, this article proposes the development of a Cultural Intelligence- CI model based on Knowledge Management - KM practices and Military Intelligence (CIKMMI model).


The success of this model is strongly related to the model of Public Administration -PA and unfortunately the actual model of PA is the New Public Management - NPM that concentrates knowledge, power and resources in the top level of the government. Therefore this article also suggests the shift from NPM to the New Public Service – NSP (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2015).


A clear distinction between the two models, managerial - NPM and collaborative- NPS, is in the way the citizen is treated. In the rhetoric of the managerial model (NGP), citizens are treated as clients, whose needs must be met by public service with maximum efficiency. Under the umbrella of the NSP model, citizens are called partners or stakeholders, with whom the public sphere builds horizontal models of relationship and coordination.


The change from the managerial model, which concentrates knowledge at the highest levels of the organization and favors corruption and favoritism, to the participatory or network-based model, which increase transparency and participation, should happen with the integration of the three foundations of intelligence (prediction, strategy and action).


This paper is structured as follows. Besides this introduction and the conclusions, section 1 discusses the advantages of NSP to support the proposed model (CIKMMI) Section 2 introduces the issue of cultural intelligence and its relationship with the effectiveness of Military Intelligence. Section 3 describes the integration of Knowledge Management and Organizational Intelligence Practices and finally section 4 presents the Cultural Intelligence model based on Knowledge Management and Military Intelligence - CIKMMI model, combining the various theoretical elements gathered throughout the previous sections.


A new model of public administration


The public policies made in response to the pandemic of COVID-19 have complicated social life and democratic processes (Kortum et al., 2020). In fact, these political actions are considered a serious threat to democracy, as governments may try to limit democratic rules under the cover of pandemic management (Lewkowicz et al., 2021).


Similarly, the literature also addresses the issue of human rights abuses in the pandemic era (Davis, 2020).

The question is: what is coming up? Tapscott et al. (2008) emphasize that we are in an era in which power, the government's authority and the legitimacy of public policies will become even more dependent on interactive democracy. Therefore, the public value is no longer provided only by the government but by collaboration.


In the 1980s, Margaret Hilda Thatcher, launched a new management philosophy to “modernize” the public sector called the New Public Management - NPM paradigm, which has the main following elements: competition and performance standards from the private sector and control of knowledge and power in the top of the public administration.


One of the main criticisms on the NPM is that this model ignores the difference between private and public sectors (Boston et al., 1996) such as Constitutions, the public interest, the market and sovereignty (Rosenbloom, 1993). This model of Public Administration has led to a concentration of power and knowledge within governments, resulting in the exclusion of other stakeholders in the policy formulation process. Critics argue that NPM has led to falling ethical standards in public life with increasing incidence of greed, favoritism and conflicting interests (Larbi, 1999). In particular, according to Samaratunge et al. (2008), in countries that did not have a bureaucratic model established, privatization (characteristic of NPM) has become a popular source of income for the distribution of corruption and patronage. In fact NPM model is based on counter-intelligence and competition instead intelligence and collaboration.


The game is open. In order to win the game we need to identify the problems and recognize our mistakes to be able to change unwished attitudes with a learning process through new ways of leadership that leads to organizational wisdom.


The actual situation is opening space to a new model of public administration to reach effective results, legitimacy and good governance. The difference and complementary between government in public administration is clear.


The distinction between politics (government) and technique (public administration) would only be softened if the decentralization of knowledge and decision-making power is evoked through the involvement of society and

the bureaucrats themselves in the design of public policies. It is administrative reform, with a societal aspect (shared governance), that drives the end of the political culture of exchanging positions for support, and not the other way around. The shift from the NGP model to the network-based collaboration model is too slow and relies mainly on technology, which ends up generating an avalanche of information, underestimation of human capital, difficulty in utilizing knowledge, lack of results and loss of focus.


In fact, public organizations go through a phase of "technological enthusiasm", in addition to the known problems  that  directly  affect  management: job  stability syndrome, "knowledge is power" culture, protective leadership style that destroys the reward policy, promotion and evaluation of civil servants, training through quick courses to acquire technical and repetitive knowledge, selection through memory tests, old legislation, and crisis of trust that undermines the transfer and creation of knowledge among government agencies.


There is a false idea that trying to organize information is the same thing as generating knowledge and its correct application (intelligence).


Moreover, being intelligent is not the same as minimizing costs and increasing production to the detriment of the magnitude of the real and positive impact of government action. To be smart is to act in a democratic/shared manner in pursuit of a sustainable outcome measured by the beneficiaries themselves (effectiveness).


Denhardt and Denhardt (2015) argue that in the New Public Service (NSP) model values such as efficiency and productivity cannot be lost, but must be placed in the broader context of democracy, community and public interest. The public interest is best served by public servants and citizens committed to making important contributions to society.


The author need a renewed sense of community and it is government that can play an important and fundamental role in this, by facilitating and supporting relationships between citizens and their communities through cooperatives, for example.


Therefore, the pragmatic focus of administrative reform is to build formal and informal institutions that induce agents to cooperative behaviours.


Shifting the focus from efficiency and productivity to effectiveness and collaboration is the basis of the shift from the New Public Management (NPM) model to the New Public Service (NSP) model. From the NGP model to the NSP we exchange competition for collaboration and shift from isolated management to shared leadership, from a unitary and short term vision to a collective and long term vision, from an approach based on production to one based on people and their contribution to a positive, great and sustainable result.


The shift from Web 1.0 (the invention of the Internet) to Web 2.0 (the era of networks) has boosted the change from a managerial approach as New Public Management (NPM) to participatory-based networks approach as the New Public Service (NPS), which is determined by the substitution of technical efficiency and market purposes with the practice of co-production of policies. Despite the fact that collaboration through networks has raised efficiency in the form of reduced transaction costs and speeding up the process of innovation, it also produced an avalanche of information that brought to the fore new forms of uncertainty, complexity and loss of focus and credibility.


The proliferation of new forms of governance is an adaptation of political administrative systems to the diversity, complexity and dynamics of contemporary society. The result is a society with greater number of actors exerting influence and with a greater number of interactions between representatives of the various social interests.


The establishment of a new Model of Public Administration to reach effective results, legitimacy and good governance depends on the cultural change and the war in Ukraine and Moldova is the opportunity to change culture and move from NPM to NPS.


Vigoda-Gadot (2002) shows that the application of NPM has been accompanied by "a lesser willingness to share, participate, elaborate, and create partnership with citizens." This has generated centralization of power and knowledge in the upper echelons of government and a consequent increase in corruption.

Wise (2002) warns that opposition to the NPM refers to its radical break with democratic governance (Box et al., 2001; Frederickson, 1996; Doig and Wilson, 1998; Lynn, 2001; Rhodes, 1998; Rosenbloom, 1993; Savoie, 1995; Stark, 2002).


Some see the NPM as solely focused on efficiency and market-based reforms, which is a threat to the elimination of democracy as the as a guiding principle of public administration (Box et al., 2001).


According to Denhardt and Denhardt (2015), the basic principles of the NSP model are:


1. Serve citizens, not consumers: as public service is seen as an extension of citizenship, both government and citizens need to abandon short-term interests, assuming collaborative roles in building an educated and mature civil society.

2. Pursue public interests: in the NSP the administrator is merely the arbiter of the public interest.

3. Give more value to citizenship and public service than to their entrepreneurial vision: public administrators work within complex political networks and their work must involve citizens in the development of public policies, which shapes politics and builds citizenship.

4. Think strategically and act democratically: policies and processes must be developed through collaborative processes, so that citizens can be involved in the public policy-making process rather than seeking only to satisfy their short-term demands.

5. Recognize that accountability is not simple: accountability in public service is what comprises the balance between rules and responsibilities that presupposes moral issues, public law and public interest. Thus, public administrators must correspond to the norms, values and preferences of the complex system of shared public governance.

6. Serve rather than lead: officials must use values-based leadership to help citizens articulate and satisfy their shared interests. They must share power and lead with commitment, integrity, respect and empowerment.

7. Value people, not just productivity: Public organizations have a better chance of being successful if they operate through collaborative processes and shared leadership based on respect for people. Respect for people is acquired from the very socialization provided by shared governance and the consequent search for effectiveness from the point of view of the beneficiary of public projects.


Leaders should be aware that many members of their staff will have access to counter-knowledge acquired though activities such as participation in social networks.


The processes that mitigate counter-knowledge are those that support an unlearning context: a permissive environment that allows individuals attempt new skills and habits, even fail sometimes in the beginning. Leaders have to support small changes, take risks, and cooperate when responding to sudden contingencies.


The game is open. In order to win the game we need to identify the problems and recognize our mistakes to be able to change unwished attitudes with an unlearning and relearning process through new ways of leadership that leads to organizational wisdom.


Unlearning context’ refers to the work environment where management helps develop and translate an organization’s vision and ideas into action and change to ensure team leaders are familiar with the modern practices of Knowledge Management.


When a problem is discovered by an organization the ‘unlearning’ process is going to change some individual cognitive patterns in order to solve the problem through the following measures:


1. Pushing change adjustments.

2. Incorporate new measures of collaboration in the organization

3. Capacity to reflect on their performance to promote improvement actions


The leaders should understand and share the main problems with the followers, asking and monitoring the unlearning and re-learning process to find the solutions.

However, remove the previous learning and applying new knowledge frequently generates internal problems when they are in conflict or lack coherence with existing knowledge or knowledge structures. Such conflicts or lack of coherence arise from differences in beliefs, habits, assumptions, and knowledge that individuals take for granted that underpin existing knowledge and knowledge structures and those associated with the new knowledge and knowledge structures.


Leaders and employees should be motivated to take risks in the refusal process of the old knowledge, innovate with the new knowledge and come up with creative solutions to problems to facilitate 'unlearning'.


The elimination of organizational knowledge, in particular the counter–knowledge, requires intense dialogue between all levels of an organization but will only occur if fostered by leaders through  knowledge Management practices, in particular mentoring, lessons learned and communities of practice in searching for Common language and mutual adjustment and growth. Some strategies to reach common language and mutual growth are:


1) Creating sub-groups with different leaders that work on the same problem and share the solutions with all groups, facilitating critical appraisal.

2) Inviting external experts to observe and intervene in discussions.


In order to start an unlearning process the first step is to change the organizational climate and after the organization culture through sensitization about practices of Knowledge Management- KM and Organizational Intelligence- OI, in particular communities of practice, with experts to analyse, interpret and facilitate the discussions. The culture impacts knowledge and its application (intelligence). The relationships among culture, knowledge and intelligence are presented in Figure 1.


The integrative framework of organizational culture and organizational knowledge management would not only facilitate organizational learning and lead to the improvement of knowledge management practices but should also facilitate creation of processes to put that knowledge in action, it means, intelligence (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Choo, 2002).


In fact, values, beliefs and orientation of an organization or society impact their capacity to create knowledge (KM) and apply it (intelligence). It is paramount to understand also the impact of KM (people, process and systems) on intelligence (prediction, strategy and action). Several societies, such as Japan, Canada and UK have some difficulties in transforming knowledge into intelligence due to the level of cultural intelligence. Germany has the highest level of intelligence and China imitated this model, even though in different way since Germany learned adopted the Culture Intelligence model to teach the young people to deal with complexity and therefore reconstruct the country with several companies, the famous entrepreneurship mind. Germany is also well known as a country that open space for the opinion of local governments due to level of trust, even though is still in the beginning of the process to listen the society.


The New Public Servie - NPS (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2015) is a good structure in between government and society (public administration) and motivate the private sector to change towards social capitalism in order to follow the new rules and reach the target (the society). US and partners cannot longer intervene in the conflicts and wars with the same model.  Moldova constructed two programs with great social participation that uses some principles of NPS.


Moldova constructs a society where they trust in each other and collaborate with each other what brings a sense of inclusion and collaboration to keep the freedom conquered  in  1991, the independence  of  the country.



Perceived inclusion refers to an individual's perceptions of belonging and being valued for what makes them unique and different within a group (Shore et al., 2011). Perceived inclusion is realized when individuals experience decision-making influence and having a voice (Mor Barak, 2016), appreciation for their true self (Nishii, 2013), and acceptance and fit in a group (Downey et al., 2015).


Alexandra et al. (2021) posit that individuals who perceive inclusion are likely to be able to realize further Culture Intelligence gains because they are open to engaging with culturally diverse workgroup members, learning about differences, and finding value in different perspectives.


In Moldova, the popular participation occurs mainly in two programs: "Moldova Pentru Pace" (Moldova for Peace, in English) and “" (Anti-corruption, in English).


The program “Moldova Pentru Pace” is the aid of the Government (National and local) of the Republic of Moldova to the refugees from Ukraine. The government is open to listen to volunteers, employees of the several refugee centres in the country and the refugees themselves to improve the welcome of the Ukrainians in Moldova.


The “Moldova Pentru Pace” Program was created with space for the opinions of employees and volunteers, and even of the refugees themselves, and has the potential to create independence and collaboration of the Ukrainian people through education. is the first online platform for reporting cases of corruption and related crimes in the Republic of Moldova. The citizens  can  report  abuses  and  improper behavior of officials, influence peddling, conflict of interests and inconsistencies, lack of transparency in public institutions and mismanagement of public money, unreported or illegally acquired property and other situations and events generating corruption.


The success of these two initiatives in the long term depends on the new model of public administration (NSP) and on the model of Cultural Intelligence based on Knowledge Management practices and Military Intelligence - CIKMMI

This is because the NSP open doors for collaboration through knowledge and governance shared.  


However the quality of this collaboration and governance depends on the level of cultural intelligence and knowledge management practices and, all together, support the Military Intelligence.


Before presenting the model that seeks to establish these relationships among CI, KM and MI, it is necessary to review how the creation and application of relevant knowledge takes place, specifically in Military Intelligence, through the practices of Knowledge Management and Cultural Intelligence. This will be done in the next following sections.


Cultural intelligence


Culture intelligence is the capacity to learn by comparison with other cultures (values, believes, traditions and assumptions).


Cultural intelligence is related to the formation of expressive bonds with people of other nationalities, leadership  competence, and the ability to understand the internal and external environment, thus having the capacity to better judge what has happened, what is happening and what may happen.


Cultural intelligence also has been linked to positive individual-level outcomes in culturally diverse contexts, including performance (Lisak and Erez, 2015), interaction quality (Charas, 2015), interpersonal trust, work engagement, and innovation (Afsar et al., 2020).


Cultural intelligence - CI, unlike Emotional Intelligence - EI, takes into account the cultural context, which was never experienced by Ukrainians and Moldovans isolated in the family economy.


EI differs, therefore, from CI because it focuses on the general ability to perceive and manage emotions without consideration of cultural context (Ang et al., 2007).


Culture intelligence (CI) is defined as a person’s capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts, and thus, it refers to a form of situated intelligence in which intelligently adaptive behaviours are culturally bound to the values and beliefs of a given society or culture (Ang and Van Dyne, 2008).


CI is culture free, and it refers to a general set of capabilities with relevance to situations characterized by cultural diversity.


Cultural intelligence was conceived at the turn of the twenty-first century, when the World was experiencing unprecedented globalization and interconnectedness, which increases inter-cultural interactions and also increases the probability of cultural misunderstandings, tensions and conflicts (Ang et al., 2011).


The concept of CI was originally introduced to the social sciences and management disciplines in 2003 by P. Christopher Earley and Soon Ang. It aims to provide insights into the question of why some people thrive in culturally diverse settings but others do not. CI is defined as “an individual’s capability to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity” (Ang and van Dyne, 2008), and therefore, it refers to “a form of situated intelligence where intelligently adaptive behaviours are culturally bound to the values and beliefs of a given society or culture” (Ang et al., 2007).


Bucher (2007) concludes that CI is about being aware of our values and those of others, and the relationships among people’s values, behaviours and cultural backgrounds, and Rockstuhl et al. (2010) hold that theory and research suggest that CI facilitates formation of expressive ties and show the value of cultural intelligence as a critical leadership competency in today’s globalized world.


Manor’s theoretical arguments suggest that top executives who are more culturally intelligent are better able to scan their environments for relevant and accurate

information and use this higher-quality information to make better decisions and take better-calculated risks (Ang et al., 2011).


One reason why CI increases the job performance is that it results in better judgment and decision-making. An important cognitive outcome is cultural judgment and decision-making (CJDM), which refers to the quality of decisions regarding inter-cultural interactions (Ang et al., 2007). In fact, the process of meaning-making is manifested in and mediated by cultural contexts (Rockstuhl et al., 2010).


Cultural intelligence has a strong impact on the processes of knowledge creation and application. This occurs because by being connected to other cultures, it is also connected to other ways of thinking and acting, which increases the ability to create relevant knowledge and apply it in a collective way, given the greater integration in the new community when the first cultural barriers are overcome.


Geertz (2000) was particularly interested in the different aspects of collective action towards social problems and therefore both revived and transformed the anthropological concept of culture in such a way as to make evident its relevance to a range of humanistic disciplines. He changed the direction of thinking in many fields by pointing to the importance and complexity of culture and the need for its interpretation.


Geertz (2000) also investigated the impact of the concept of culture on the concept of man, the growth of culture, the evolution of mind and the religion as a cultural system. His work goes in the direction of the fact that culture impacts more than genetic and personality in the decision make process.


The integration of knowledge management and organizational intelligence practices


Teece (2000) defines knowledge as information in context, and according to Cohen (1998), “context” is a wider view, a setting, statement, or body of information that explains or gives meaning to words, ideas or actions.

According to Davenport and Prusak (2003), knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences. Knowledge is defined as information in context and it is necessary to recognize the different types of knowledge (Stonehouse and Pemberton, 1999).


The information is analysed in the context of the personal standards, criteria, and expectations of the decision-maker to become knowledge. Finally, the decision-maker applies this knowledge to a particular situation to create intelligence.


Work done by researchers, including Choo (1998) and Boisot (1998), suggest that there are three types of knowledge: tacit, explicit and cultural knowledge.


Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) explain that the creation of knowledge leverages tacit knowledge (it is linked to mental models and know-how) by converting it into new explicit knowledge (knowledge that can be expressed in words,  numbers, and symbols and stored in books, computers). According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) through operationalization and dissemination, the new explicit knowledge is re-experienced and re-internalized as cultural knowledge (believes and values that leads to alternative interpretations and actions).


Rothberg and Erickson (2004) clarify that knowledge is socially constructed with collaborative activities, but access to this knowledge does not mean success in decision-making, since knowledge without application is innocuous. In summary, knowledge is the foundation for intelligence, since intelligence is knowledge in action to solve problems.


Bali et al. (2009) define Knowledge Management - KM as a set of tools, techniques, tactics, and technologies designed to leverage the intangible assets of the organization by extracting data, pertinent information, and relevant knowledge to facilitate decision-making. KM is a set of practices aimed at the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge to acquire and create new competencies (knowledge + skills + attitudes) to enable an organization to act intelligently (transform complexity into meaningful simplicity) in different environments (De Angelis, 2016).


Knowledge Management practices are grouped into three dimensions as proposed by Tsui (2005): i) people; ii) processes; iii) content and iv) information and communication technologies.


Regarding people, the best known practices are: Forums (face-to-face or virtual) / discussion lists, corporate education, Narratives, Coaching, Corporate University, Mentoring and Communities of practice or knowledge communities.


With regard to practices in the area of process management, the most commonly used practices are: Internal and external benchmarking, Best practices, Bank of organizational and individual competencies, Mapping or knowledge audit, lessons learned, Competency-based management system and Management of intellectual capital or intangible assets.


With regard to practices in the technological area, we have the following practices: Electronic document management (EDM), Collaboration tools: Portals, internet and extranet, Workflow systems, Data warehouses, Data mining, Content management, Customer Relationship Management (CRM), Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Decision Support System (DSS), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Key Performance Indicators (KPI).

Choo (2002) defines OI as a continuous cycle of activities that include sensing the environment, developing insights, and creating meaning through interpretation, using the memory of past experience to act on the developed interpretations. OI refers to a process of turning data into knowledge and knowledge into action for organizational gain (Cronquist, 2010).


De Angelis (2013) considers OI as the ability of an organization to adapt and to learn and change in response to environmental conditions through the use of relevant knowledge.


OI appears used to refer to the organization’s ability to process, interpret, handle and access information in an intentional and directed way to the organizational objectives, thus increasing its adaptability in the environment (Glynn, 1996; Istudor et al., 2016). ln this sense, OI results from a systematic processing of information and knowledge available internally in the organization and its external environment, used to improve the organization's ability to predict the future and adapt to changes in the environment (Istudor et at.. 2016).


OI is the capacity of an organization to develop efficient behaviour in order to guarantee adequate reaction to the dynamics and uncertainties present in the environment, thus determining their capacity to create and time knowledge in a strategic way to adapt to the market environment (Istudor el al. 2014; Istudor et al., 2016).


This definition considers that the OI is adaptive and a social result (Glynn, 1996: Nour-mohammad et al., 2011), that is, it is modified according to environmental conditions (internal and external), in order to solve the problems, meeting the defined objectives and responding appropriately to environmental challenges (Glynn, 1996)”.


OI influences some behaviours considered socially accepted, such as the good relations of the individual with their work colleagues end family - therefore is considered an important capacity for the work environment.


The Organizational Intelligence – OI – practices are used to improve the interpretation and synthesis of the knowledge generated: expert analysis, intelligent systems and advanced techniques, such as competitive hypothesis and modeling using structural equations. OI tools combine a mix of sociology-technical elements from (a) subjective assessments of the online discussion led by facilitators and subject matter experts with (b) real-time feedback from data mining and semantic analysis of the online discussion. OI tools contribute to deep structural changes and transformations in the social climate, the collaborative culture and the role of internal collective intelligence (Chauvel et al., 2012). The idea behind OI tools is to transform crowdsourcing models that apply the "wisdom of crowds" to the "wisdom of experts" to solve complex problems.


Staškevi?i?t? and ?iutien? (2008) point out that in the scientific literature it is possible to find different concepts of OI, but they are all constrained by the same characteristic: the organization's ability to adapt to the environment and to KM.


Despite the intuitive appeal that the concepts of KM and OI are complementary and interdependent, this relationship has received relatively little attention in the literature. For Halal and Kull (1998), IO is a function of five cognitive subsystems: organizational structure; organizational culture; stakeholder relationships; strategic processes; and CG.Liebowitz  (1999)  emphasizes that active knowledge management is critical to enable organizational performance improvement, problem solving, and decision-making.


Based on these perspectives, one can conclude that KM provides methods for identifying, storing, sharing, and creating knowledge, while OI integrates, analyses, and interprets this knowledge for decision-making and problem solving.


As the juxtaposition between KM and OI, OI and Military Intelligence - MI share common roots. The study of the OI in the military arena is known as MI.


There is not interchangeable in meaning between Cultural Intelligence – CI and Organizational Intelligence, even though there is a strong juxtaposition between these two constructs that it will be clear in the research model and also in the discussion of the results.


Despite such a shared intellectual and practical heritages, work in organizational intelligence and Military Intelligence have developed in separation, with surprisingly little interaction. It is only recently that organizational strategy scholars have started to engage more substantially with Military Intelligence literature (Munro, 2010; Kornberger, 2013; Mackay and Zundel, 2017; Kornberger and Engberg-Pedersen, 2021).


Kornberger and Vaara (2021), by elaborating on the intersections of organizational and Military Intelligence research, they seek to open up avenues for a further dialogue between military and organizational intelligence.


Military Intelligence has a long tradition of thinking through strategy as engagement and therefore this this body of literature has helped us to capture aspects of strategy work that are difficult to conceptualize – or even accept - in our conventional thinking about organizational intelligence.


Notably, practices of engagement are not necessarily competitive – they can also be collaborative or co-operative: what engagement practices share is a focus on influencing external actors and their intentions, decisions and actions with the aim that they either join one’s own designs, give up their own agendas, or change their course of action. Engagement has a great intersection with wisdom that is even higher than intelligence, in this case, military intelligence.


According to McKee and Barber (1999), wisdom is ‘hard won from engagement with life’ and therefore gained through experience. Experiences calling for the application of wisdom and contributing to its generation are said; to include responses to fundamental life issues (Baltes and Smith, 2008) confronting challenging situations (Baltes and Smith, 2008), facing uncertainty (Brugman, 2000), etc.


According to Elangovan and Suddaby (2020) wisdom is a way of approaching the world and acting in it through a holistic orientation in making judgments in complex and ambiguous situations. Houck and Gamette (2019) consider wisdom, an elevated understanding where “understanding” is an appreciation of ‘why’:  Wisdom can increase effectiveness, adding value through judgment (“the right thing to do”). Wisdom uses knowledge for the benefit of the larger purpose, the greater good.


Kornberger and Vaara (2021) state that the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that most of the effort should be non-military. This conclusion, along with the capacity to create strong ties, is a clear demonstration of wisdom. Sharing knowledge and power, opening the decision-making process and fostering new relationships and partnerships are the foundation of military intelligence.


Gates (2008) highlights that success in the war on terror will depend less on the fighting we do ourselves and more on how well we support our allies and partners (collaboration). To succeed, the author must harness and integrate all aspects of national power and work closely with a wide range of allies, friends, and partners. He cannot prevail alone. The problem is to identify the allies, friends and partners since several governments play in both sides. Gates (2008) affirms that when it was time to request basing rights in Central Asia, the United States already had a solid foundation on which to build to secure bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. However, these two countries have strong ties with Russia, in particular in times of war with Ukraine and treats against Moldova.


As a remedy, Military Intelligence offers a clear definition of strategy: strategy is the bridge between policy and conduct in the battlefield. Here strategy is understood as translating and engaging in “continuous dialogues among policymakers, strategists, and operational artists-tacticians (Gray, 2010).


Strategy is the ongoing effort to relate actions on the battlefield to overall purpose and vice versa. This bridge implies a newly defined locus for strategy: strategy is neither policy-setting nor conduct on the battlefield but the movement between these two pillars. This definition curtails strategy – it is not about (fighting) capability, nor about big picture vision (policy); but about the effect that the former has on the latter.


The elements of intelligence are prediction, strategy and action (Rothberg and Erickson, 2004). Therefore, Strategy is not an action behaviour, but an effect of the prediction made.


Strategy is an effect, a relation between a specific action and the fulfillment of a purpose or a goal. The locus of strategy is the bridge, linking tactics with policy through effect (Kornberger and Vaara, 2021).


Tactics sharpens Military Intelligence’s focus on hybrid and disruptive environments: it broadens its structural anchor points to harness distributed cognition, collective intelligence and decentralized collective action.


Military Intelligence’s talk about the “theater of war” provides an important cue: strategy is a drama, set on a stage, with the aim to create an effect on fellow actors and audiences. This strategic interaction perspective puts emphasis on persuasion and seduction: what strategy aims at is changing actors’ sense making, their interpretation of a specific situation in order to change their course of action.


A model of cultural intelligence based on knowledge management practices and military intelligence


Besides this important balance between creation (KM) and application of knowledge (MI), and of course better conditions for it (CI), it is fundamental to understand how to construct the model of Cultural Intelligence based on Knowledge Management practices and Military Intelligence – CIKMMI.


In this study, the relationships between the variables (hypotheses) were empirically tested using structure equation modelling (SEM). SEM is a technique that combines elements of both multiple regression and factor analysis that enables the researcher not only to assess quite complex interrelated dependence relationships but also to incorporate the effects of measurement error on the structural coefficients at the same time.


There are two approaches to estimate the parameters of a SEM (types of SEM techniques): the covariance-based approach (CEB-SEM) (e.g. LISREL) and the variance-based approach (PLS-SEM) (e.g. partial least square path modelling).


Because of its prediction orientation, PLS-SEM is the preferred method when the research objective is theory development and prediction (Hair et al., 2005). Furthermore, Henseler et al. (2009) hold that the sample required (to reach the same statistical power) for the CFA-PLS is lower than for CB-SEM, and in the PLS-PM, there is no assumption of normality of the variables.


PLS is a family of alternating least squares algorithms, which extend principal component and canonical correlation analysis (Henseler and Sarstedt, 2012).


According to Schreiber et al. (2006), SEM, in comparison with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), extends the possibility of relationships among the latent variables and encompasses two components:


(1) A measurement model (essentially the CFA); and

(2) A structural model.


Data collection


The hypotheses were investigated via a 22-item questionnaire (Appendix) that was addressed to 101 refugees from Ukraine and volunteers from Moldova hosted at the Center of Mold Expo in Chi?in?u. Additionally, 9 interviews were done at the same place to check the results of the survey through qualitative research.


After a wide range review of theoretical and empirical research and survey methods, this research adopted a web survey to obtain input from targeted respondents and achieve the objectives of this research project. The use of key informants from organizations for data collection has been a popular method in many research contexts (Huber and Power, 1985).


A pilot version of the questionnaire with 22 questions (Appendix) across 4 dimensions (Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Management-Organizational Intelligence, Social Participation, ilitary Intelligence) was developed and sent to 72 refugees from Ukraine and 29 volunteers at Mold Expo in Chi?in?u, Moldova. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the  results  indicated  that  14  questions across 2 dimensions explained a majority of the variance.


In order to give strength by confirming the results obtained in the quantitative research, the interview was the second data gathering criteria. The interview was made with 5 refugees from Ukraine and 4 volunteers from Moldova at the Center of Refugees Mold Expo in Chi?in?u, Moldova.


According to Miller and Glassner (2004) interviews are designed and executed to understand and give voice to participants’ experiences, behaviours and attitudes in a non-threatening, confidential and non-evaluative manner. Interviews are particularly useful for getting the story behind a participant’s experiences. The interviewer can pursue in-depth information around the topic (McNamara, 1999).


The author conducted interviews on one-on-one basis and compared and contrasted the results himselves, avoiding focus groups due to their elevated potential for acquiescence bias (Schaffer and Riordan, 2003).

The refinement of the research construct was done through four tests of validity (content, discriminant, convergent and nomological) and two tests of reliability (composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha). At the second stage, for every round of factor analysis, the reliability of the scales was checked. Based on the results of the second version of the web survey, at the third stage, the evaluation of the measurement model (validity and reliability) was accomplished by removing items that had low factor loading. Responses were quantitatively analyzed using structural model with partial least squares estimation (PLS-PM) to test the research model and research hypotheses.


All quantitative data analyses are done by using SmartPLS 2.0.M3 (Ringle et al., 2005) and IBM SPSS statistics version 20.0 software packages. This research empirically tests three hypotheses (Table 1) related to the following research questions:


- To what extend does Cultural Intelligence impact Knowledge Management?

- To what extend does Cultural Intelligence impact Military Intelligence?

- To what extend does Knowledge Management impact Military Intelligence?


The CIKMMI model has been developed from the existing body of literature on Cultural Intelligence, Knowledge Management and Military Intelligence, which is then used to test the following three hypotheses:


The relationships between popular participation, social control, and greater effectiveness of public policies, intuitively outlined in the paragraphs above, take on a formal character in the Cultural intelligence model based on Knowledge Management and Military Intelligence - CIKMMI model. Figure 2 illustrates the model's concepts and relationships.


Data analysis


The evaluation of the reflective measurement model has the following elements:


1) Internal consistency reliability: Composite reliability should be higher than 0.701 (in exploratory research, 0.60 to 0.70 is considered acceptable).

2) Convergent validity: The average variance extracted (AVE) should be higher than 0.50 (Chin, 1998; Hair et al., 2005).

3) Discriminant validity: Indicators with high loads (0.7) in their latent variables (LV) and low loads in other LV (cross-load) indicate discriminant validity (Chin, 1998); Correlations between the latent variables are smaller than the square root of AVE (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table 2 shows the composite reliability  and  alpha values for the three dimensions of CIKMMI model. The detailed analysis of convergent validity can be found in Table 3.


All VLs (first and second orders) showed AVE greater than 50%, which meets the criteria of Chin (1998) and Hair et al. (2005) for the indication of convergent validity.


The second criteria states that an indicator’s loading with its associated latent construct should be higher than its loadings with all the remaining constructs (that is the cross-loadings). Indicators with high loads (0.7) in their LV and low loads in other LV (cross-load) indicate discriminant validity (Chin, 1998). The cross-loading are presented in Table 4. The discriminant validity analysis revealed that most indicators show adequate discriminant validity, indicating that the concepts are evaluated by respondents as representing different aspects of the phenomenon. Figures 3 and 4 present the relationships among the model’s constructs (path coefficients) of the structural model for Moldova and Ukraine, respectively.


By analyzing Figures 3 (Moldova -M) and 4 (Ukraine- U), it is possible to conclude that: In Moldova and Ukraine, CI has a positive influence on KM (M=0,69 and U=0,56) and MI (M=0,77 and U=0,27), while KM has a positive influence on MI (M=0,53 and U=0,38).   


Cultural Intelligence are important to explain changes in practices of KM (R2 Moldova: 0.64 and R2 Ukraine: 0.45) and also in Military Intelligence (R2 Moldova: 0.77 and R2 Ukraine: 0.28).


If the influence of CI on MI is removed, then it is possible to conclude, analyzing Figures 5 (Moldova) and 6 (Ukraine), that:

1) In Moldova, CI is responsible for 73% of changes in KM, and KM is responsible for 61% of changes in MI.

2) In Ukraine, CI is responsible for 48% of changes in KM, and KM is responsible for 33% of changes in MI.

Figures 5 and 6 show that the path coefficients without the influence of CI on MI (Moldova and Ukraine respectively).





In order to understand the answers of the participants from Ukraine and Moldova it is paramount to know a little about these two countries.


In Ukraine all people speak only Russian language, even some of them have the capability to speak Ukraine, and in Moldova there is an attempt to keep Romanian as the main language even though the government has fear of Russia’s re-actions in case of campaigns to motivate people to speak the official language.


The population of Ukraine was easy convinced by the government to stay quiet in their places from the very beginning of occupations in the Red Army in 2014 in Crimea and in 2020 in Luhansk and Dunetsk, and this process has been completed through the isolation provoked by Covid restrictions adopted by Ukrainian government, extremely corrupt according to all respondents, in detriment of Moldova Government, fighting against corruption according to all respondents. These areas were isolated by the Ukrainian Government and the rest of populations accepted it easily saying “this is not my business, it is not my place”. In fact, they decision of the population in speaking only Russia and not learn English lead them to be the easiest target of the communism system.


Moldova’s Government, in opposition, realized the need to work with the community to survive against the attempts of the return of the communism. The Russian has difficulties to order any attack in Moldova since the people usually visit and some of them live and work in two of occupied areas in Moldova, Transnistria e Gagauzia. It is also difficult of applying the strategy of passports and other benefits since the people in Moldova do not trust too much in people who speaks only Russia, even though they also speak it.


Ukraine is the second-largest country in all of Europe, after Russia, which has started the re-occupation of Ukraine in 2014, while this process started in Moldova in 1991 when 700 people has been killed by the Soviet Army and Transnistria, the first occupation, has been created.


In regards to Ukraine, the local census conducted by Russia in December 2014 found 2,248,400 people living in Crimea, the first occupation of Russia in Ukraine. The other occupations are: Donetsk (the population was estimated at 905,364 people in 2021) and Luhansk (the population was estimated at 399,559 people in 2021).


Donbas, formed by Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, is the scene of great influx of Russians in recent years. It is a Russian-speaking independent country that received more than 720,000 Russian passports to roughly one-fifth of the region’s population. This effectively makes them Russian citizens and creates a pretext for war, as the country can state that its troops are being sent there in to "protect" Russian citizens, and from February 2022 start the final stage: the devastation of all country.


While Ukraine was occupied in three parts (from 2014) before the total occupation (in 2022), Moldova has two large parts occupied by Russians and Turks. Moldova was occupied in the south and center of the country by inseparable partners Russia (Transnistria) and Turkey (Gagauzia), totaling a population of 609,000 people, which is a little over 21% of the population residing in the central government-controlled area of Moldova (2,640,400), according to national Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Moldova in 2020. The population decreased in the last 7 years by 8,0% due to the brain drain in particular to Germany, Romania, UK, Netherlands and Italy. Nobody from the Pro-European Union part, such as Moldova, knows how many soldiers are waiting the order of attack from the two occupations in Moldova. After the total invasion of Ukraine, which had also already lost two parts of its territory, it also fears being devastated by the Red Army and its partners, since the contexts are very similar.


According to military experts' estimates, 1,600 Russian military personnel are stationed in Transnistria, while the so-called Transnistrian army has strength of 7,000-8,000 soldiers.


In March 2022 The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine asked to Federal Government of Moldova action against the mobilization of Russian troops in the separatist region on the left bank of the Dniester river.


This fight between language and occupation; back on 2015 in protest of all attempts of Russia to force Moldova to speak Russia. In these new movements, Moldova was asking to unify with Romania because they found themselves small to fight against Russia.


However, though historically Romanian support for unification was high, a 2022 survey during the Russo-Ukrainian War indicated that only 11% of Romania's population supports an immediate union, while over 42% think it is not the moment.


On the other side, a majority in Moldova continues to oppose the unification as well because Moldova people consider people from Romania not so intelligence and honest as them because they speak only one language and they have too much more distractions and easy life based on the protection and support of the European Union. However, support in Moldova for reunification has increased significantly after the war in Ukraine, rising from approximately 20 to 44% support from 2015 to 2022 based on the war in Ukraine. Obviously, support for unification with Romania is much lower in Transnistria and Gagauzia since they receive good support from Russian Empire.


Ukraine is much more similar than Russia, based on the impact of the Ortodox Church that keep people under control, than Moldova that received also language and culture skills from Romania. This cultural intelligence ofMoldova give much more work for Russia Empire to dominate them with the same strategy of Ukraine: passports, other benefits, war of peace to convince people, isolation of occupied areas, control of other areas with covid and fear, devastation. This is why the war is still only in Ukraine, where people speak only Russia and are more individualistic than Moldova based on the high level of corruption, the example of the government that, apart from common strategies of corruption, created fake personal attacks in 2021 to receive more money from US and the devastation in 2022.


National culture (NC) represents the rules and practices that determine the environment within which people communicate. This cultural background shapes how people communicate and interact and has a major impact on knowledge creation, sharing and use (De Long and Fahey, 2000).


Regarding this, De Long and Fahey (2000) suggest a number of cultural characteristics that affect the creation of knowledge. They hold that culture, among other things:


1) Shapes assumptions about which knowledge is important;

2) Mediates the relationships between individual and organizational levels of knowledge;

3) Creates a context for social interaction and shapes the creation and adoption of new knowledge.


Cegarra-Navarro et al. (2011) holds that national culture is also expected to affect the three knowledge processes explained above (that is, transfer, transformation and open-mindedness).


These complement of review of literature can help to justify the impact of Cultural Intelligence on KM and MI in both countries: Moldova (0.69 and 0.77) and Ukraine (0.56 and 0.27).


In this regard it is paramount to highlight that De Vita (2001), Kennedy (2002), Tweed and Ledman (2002) suggested that by influencing the way individuals perceive, organize and process information, the way they communicate with others and the way they understand, organize and generate knowledge and solve problems, culture is inextricably limited to learning approaches and preferences.


Additionally, in the same sense, Akgun et al., (2007) argue that OI, which is MI in the macro level, is an everyday activity that is cognitively distributed and demonstrated by people's behaviour, their culture and their organizational routines.


The other characteristic of Ukraine heritages from Russia is the patriotism in opposition of EU and Moldova that motivates the multiculturalism since it is the key point to deal with complexity and therefore open and manage companies. Even though part of population has left Ukraine by the brain drain movement before the diaspora movement caused by occupations of parts of territory and war, Ukrainians have much more difficulties  to leave the country than Moldova. This is because the level of maturity, that is measure by the level of cultural intelligence, is higher in Moldova and a great amount of people of Moldova have been deported from other countries since they have less rights to travel than Ukrainians. Moldova people are dependent of Romanian documents to travel abroad but even with these restrictions and more pressure from Russia to stay without knowledge and experience, they develop more both of them in comparison to Ukraine and these is clear in the survey and the interviews. This is actually the reason that the impact of CI on KM in Moldova is 0.69 and in Ukraine is 0.56. When the military arena enters in the analysis of the distance between the two countries is much higher (0.77 and 0.27 respectively). This is because the Army in Ukraine is completed isolated from the other public organizations and from the society, while in Moldova, with less than 5% of the population of Ukraine, the Army is completed integrated with the police, with the society, with other public organizations and also with other countries. In Ukraine, even though they receive a lot of support from NATO forces and US, also individually, the integration is not high, focus only in defense and “attack” without a strategic plan made in collaboration. The language is not the higher barrier, but the ego of Ukrainian Army according to the most of respondents of Ukraine, that accuse also them to be corrupted as the federal government.


In regards to the impact of Knowledge into intelligence, the difference is smaller than the impact of culture on intelligence, what is a general statement.


How things are done and how people behave and act (culture) directly influences the goals, mission, vision, processes, responsibilities, design, communication, learning, technology, and so on. The statement “culture eats strategy for breakfast” attributed to Peter Drucker (1993), highlights the importance of culture in providing the context for the formulation and implementation of strategies (Ireland and Hitt, 1999; Farjoun, 2002). The impact of culture deserves a further analysis.


Even though both countries are isolated from the West based on the hard game with Russia, Moldova is more flexible to accept other cultures and therefore they invite professors, particularly from Germany, to transmit their knowledge in short courses. The Ukraine, instead, besides the fact that they do not speak Ukraine they also do not speak English and the creation of international seminars are not a common approach.


In other words, in Moldova the level of English language skills are higher in comparison to students of Ukrainian Universities, which helps Moldova people to understand international literature without going to other countries, even though they travel much more than Ukrainians, which leads to the higher level of Cultural Intelligence and more protection against the war.


In Ukraine the Military force is also isolated and the impact of Knowledge Management on Military Intelligenceis 0.38, while in Moldova is 0.53. Both need to improve considerably in this aspect of creation and application of knowledge and it is just a position in the Military arena.


In fact, it is clear in both, survey and interviews, that Ukraine and Moldova have several difficulties to apply knowledge based not only on fears about the Russian communist system that removed the knowledge from them, forcing professors to leave abroad based due to the lack of investments for lack of resources in the universities.


Moldova, in opposition to Ukraine, is future- and performance-orientated, getting information from facts, books and statistics, instead of being people-oriented, getting the first-hand (oral) information as in Ukraine. It is important to emphasize the fight of public libraries against the Soviet Empire to transfer relevant knowledge to people in Moldova, what is expressed also with the high number of book shops, everywhere, what is difficult to find in Ukraine where people do not consider knowledge important, only the games learned with the Russian language, a strategic skill. Besides that the high level of uncertainty avoidance of Ukraine people impacts their intelligence. This is also related to the fact of few numbers of libraries and bookshops in Ukraine, the isolation of the universities to the international community, and the individualist approach of the Russian Orthodox Church. 


It is important to notice that when the impact of culture on intelligence is remove (Figures 5 and 6), the impact of knowledge on intelligence in Moldova change from 0.53 to 0.92 while in Ukraine the change is much smaller from 0.38 to 0.54. This is because the Military force in Moldova is doing a strong effort to learn with other countries (culture intelligence) and also with the creation of new knowledge (Knowledge Management). In the absence of the first, the second is intensified dramatically.


In line with the previous literature, the results of this study suggest that the development of an organizational culture supports the application of KM practices (Davenport and Prusak, 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Gold et al., 2001; Janz and Prasarnphanic, 2003; Lee and Choi, 2003; Donate and Guadamillas, 2010). Caloghirou et al. (2004) also support this conclusion when affirming that the availability of knowledge will increase the ability of people to search, recognize and present a problem as well as assimilate and use new knowledge for problem-solving.


This is also related to the experience of people from Moldova in searching for opportunities of job since the huge economic crises caused by the “economic embargo” from Russia.


In this learning process some authors can contribute to understand the creation of knowledge and intelligence, considering cultural skills.


Learning occurs in an individual; however it mostly occurs through social interaction with others (Reed et al., 2010).  Furthermore, when  participation  is  brought  into relation with co-management (Berkes, 2009; Leys and Vanclay, 2011;   Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007; von Korff et al., 2012) social learning is closely linked. Social learning is closely linked to participation, change, knowledge and experience (Abelshausen et al., 2014).

Perceived inclusion involves knowledge sharing and participation in decision-making (Mor Barak, 2016) and it has been linked to engagement in learning behaviours such as dialogue and collaboration (Zhu et al., 2019).


The motivation and patience of students from Moldova contribute to develop the culture of sharing, what is paramount for the creation and application of Knowledge. However, Moldova students need support from professors and the universities’ leaders, based in one change of Government’s strategy, to create practices of knowledge sharing in the University, what it is not common in Ukraine. When the students identify the sense of community and effectiveness of a Cultural Intelligence and Knowledge Management program between University and Industry they are much more motivate to contribute by exchanging their knowledge and experience and apply in Moldova through the openness of new companies.


The learning of new believes, values, assumptions, traditions, resilience (cultural intelligence), impact the culture of sharing, which helps in the process of creation and application of knowledge.


Offering a new perspective to the existing literature by investigating the juxtaposition between KM and MI through CI, this paper presented a theoretical model of public governance between the Minister of Defense (Government) and the Army (Public Administration) with the potential to give legitimacy to the Government and improve the effectiveness of the Army's actions.


The CIKMMI model gives the opportunity to understand the impact of culture on knowledge and intelligence and also the impact of knowledge in intelligence. Countries based on knowledge, such as England, New Zealand tigers economies, and Canada, should learn more with intelligent-based countries such as Germany, US and Australia, and these countries should protect the ex-communist and the other countries without access to know and experience such as the ones located in South and Central America what is the huge risk to the security of US since they are easily convinced by the communism system as the case of Ukraine, where 100% of the population speak only Russian language and part accepted Russian passports and other benefits. Given the superiority of the Russian and Chinese languages, US should avoid the overload of information caused by the social networks and bring a new proposal for the world since the results of the capitalism, where richest become even more rich and the poorest become  even more poor is under collapse long time ago.


As one of the responses to the economic and confidence crisis the public space comes to identify more with society, and less with the state. We are evolving from Hobbes (State Sovereignty) to Locke and Rousseau (People's Sovereignty). Govern with the society, rather than govern the society, makes the beneficiary able to contribute to the development of the strategy, planning and management of various programs and projects, improving the quality of expenditure and public action. Citizen participation and the establishment of partnerships help in the transformation from a short-term culture of mistrust to one long-term culture of collaboration.


The State needs to realize that participation and social control consider the issues of power and divergent interests in any public project. Based on this understanding, the state must open itself to the knowledge of society in order to overcome the crisis of confidence and the economic crisis arising from the policy of isolation and maintenance of the status quo.


As discussed in this article, the crisis is an opportunity to review beliefs, values, assumptions, and behaviours in search of better results. The destructive side of functionalism has generated economic, social, moral, and other crises stemming from the mother of all crises, which is the crisis of perception. 


The impact of culture and knowledge on intelligence is paramount to help governments make decisions. The perspectives and analyses offer a new way of thinking, useful analytical model as well tools around which novel ways of knowledge management of cultural intelligence can be useful in shaping military intelligence.


However, further investigation of these relationships is paramount to better understanding how to flourish Military Intelligence.


A clear limitation of this study is the number of the interviews to understand the phenomenon. Further investigation with refugees can bring more results and also improve the results obtained in this research.


The author has not declared any conflict of interests.


Abelshausen B, Vanwing T, De Donder L, Buffel T, De Backer F (2014). Stakeholder participation and knowledge sharing in Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Vietnam. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 116:1792-1796.


Afsar B, Al-Ghazali BM, Cheema S, Javed F (2020). Cultural intelligence and innovative work behavior: The role of work engagement and interpersonal trust. European Journal of Innovation Management.


Alexandra V, Ehrhart KH, Randel AE (2021). Cultural intelligence, perceived inclusion, and cultural diversity in workgroups. Personality and Individual Differences 168:110285.


Ang S, Van Dyne L, Koh C, Ng KY, Templer KJ, Tay C, Chandrasekar NA (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.


Ang S, Van Dyne L (2008). Handbook on Cultural Intelligence: Theory. Measurement and Applications pp. 3-5.


Ang S, Dyne LV, Tan ML (2011). Cultural Intelligence in The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Edited by Robert J Sternberg & Scoot Barry Kaufman, Cambridge University Press, Online publication pp. 582-602.


Bali RK, Wickramasinghe N, Lehaney B (2009), Knowledge Management Primer, Routledge, New York, NY.


Baltes PB, Smith J (2008). The fascination of wisdom: Its nature, ontogeny, and function. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3(1):56-64.


Boisot MH (1998). Knowledge Asserts: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Knowledge Economy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.


Boston J, Martin J, Pallot J, Walsh P (1996). Public management: the New Zealand model. Oxford University Press, USA.


Box RC, Marshall GS, Reed BJ, Reed CM (2001). New public management and substantive democracy. Public Administration Review 61(5):608-619.


Brugman G (2000). Wisdom: Source of narrative coherence and eudaimonia. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.


Bucher RD (2007). Building Cultural Intelligence (CQ): Nine Mega Skills, Pearson.


Chauvel D, Tressols F, Despres C (2012). The open innovation of management and organization. Management in the knowledge economy - new managerial models for success.


Chin WW (1998). The Partial Least Squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated. Pp. 295-336.


Choo CW (1998), The Knowing Organisation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.


Choo CW (2002). Information management for the intelligent organisation: the art of scanning the environment. 3rd edition. Medford: Information Today.


Caloghirou Y, Kastelli I, Tsakanikas A (2004). "Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance", Technovation 24(1):29-39.


Charas S (2015). Improving corporate performance by enhancing team dynamics at the board level. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 12(2):107-131.


Cohen D (1998). Toward a knowledge context. California Management Review 40(3):22-38.


Cronquist B (2010). Enabling knowledge-workers commitment to organizational intelligence activities.


Davis S (2020). Human Rights and Covid-19. Global Challenges. Disponivel em


Davenport TH, Prusak L (2003). What's the Big Idea? Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.


Davenport TH, Prusak L (2000), Working Knowledge, 2nd edition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.


De Angelis CT (2013). A Knowledge Management and Organizational Intelligence Model for Public Sector Administrations. International Journal of Public Administration 36(11):807-819.


De Angelis CT (2016). The impact of national culture and knowledge management on governmental intelligence. Journal of Modelling in Management 11:211.


Denhardt R, Denhardt JV (2015). The new public service: serving, not steering. Nueva York; Londres: Sharpe.


Doig A, Wilson J (1998). What price new public management? The Political Quarterly 69(3):267-276.


Donate MJ, Guadamillas F (2010). The effect of organizational culture on knowledge management practices and innovation. Knowledge and Process Management 17(2):82-94.


Downey SN, van der Werff L, Thomas KM, Plaut VC (2015). The role of diversity practices and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement Journal of Applied Social Psychology 45(1):35-44.


Drucker P (1993). Post-Capitalist Society> Harper Collins. New York.


Farjoun M (2002). Towards an organic perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal 23(7):561-594.


Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1):39-50.


Frederickson HG (1996). Comparing the reinventing government movement with the new public administration. Public Administration Review 56:263-270.


Gates R (2008). Landon Lecture (Kansas State University). Reprinted în Military Review.


Gold AH, Malhotra A, Segars AH (2001). Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1):185-214.


Glynn MA (1996). Innovative Genius: A Framework for Relating Individual and Organizational Intelligences to Innovation. The Academy of Management Review 21(4):1081-1111.


Geertz C (2000). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.


Gray CS (2010). The Strategy Bridge: Theory for Practice. Oxford University Press.


Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2005). Análise Multivariada de Dados. [Multivariate Data Analysis], 5th edition, Bookman, Porto Alegre.


Halal EW, Kull MD (1998). Measuring organizational intelligence. On the Horizon 5(5).


Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing, In: Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds)", New Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing, Volume 20) Emerald Group Publishing Limited.


Henseler J, Sarstedt M (2012). Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modelling. Computational Statistics 28(2):565-580.


Houck MM, Gamette M (2019). Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom: A Partnership to Improve the Management of Forensic Service Organizations. Forensic Science International Synergy 1(3).


Huber G, Power D (1985) Retrospective Reports of Strategic-Level Managers: Guidelines for Increasing Their Accuracy. Strategic Management Journal 6(2):171-180.


Ireland RD, Hitt MA (1999). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Perspectives 13(1):43-57.


Istudor N, Ion RA, Sponte M, Petrescu IE (2014). Food security in Romania-A modern approach for developing sustainable agriculture. Sustainability 6(12):8796-807.


Istudor N, Ursacescu M, Sendroiu C, Radu I (2016). Theoretical framework of organizational intelligence: a managerial approach to promote renewable energy in rural economies. Energies 9(8):639.


Janz BD, Prasarnphanich P (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: the importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision Science 34(2):351-384.


Kornberger M, Vaara E (2021) Strategy as engagement: What organization strategy can learn from military strategy. Long Range Planning 55(4):102125.


Kornberger M (2013). Clausewitz: on strategy. Business History 55(7):1058- 1073.


Kornberger M, Engberg-Pedersen A (2021). Reading Clausewitz, Reimagining the Practice of Strategy. Strategic Organization 19(2):338-350.


Kortum P, Stein R, Acemyan CZ, Wallach DS, Vann E (2020). How Human Factors Can Help Preserve Democracy in the Age of Pandemics. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 62(7):1077-1086.


Larbi GA (1999). The new public management approach and crisis states UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 112, September.


Lee H, Choi B (2003), Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance. Journal of Management Information Systems 20(1):179-228.


Lewkowicz J, Wo?niak M, Wrzesi?ski M (2021). COVID-19 and erosion of democracy. Economic Modelling 106:105682.


Liebowitz J (Ed.) (1999). Knowledge management handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press.


Lisak A, Erez M (2015). Leadership emergence in multicultural teams: The power of global characteristics Journal of World Business 50(1):3-14.


Lynn Jr LE (2001). The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: what traditional public administration really stood for. Public Administration Review 61(2):144-160.


Mackay D, Zundel M (2017). Recovering the divide: a review of strategy and tactics in business and management. International Journal of Management Reviews 19(2):175-194.


McKee P, Barber C (1999). On defining wisdom. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 49(2):149-164.


McNamara C (1999). General Guidelines for Conducting Interviews, Minnesota.


Miller J, Glassner B (2004). The "inside" and the "outside". Finding realities in interviews. In: D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 51-66). London: Sage.


Mor Barak M (2016). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace Sage Publications.


Munro I (2010). Nomadic strategies in the network society: from lawrence of Arabia to linux. Scandinavian Journal of Management 26(2):215-223.


Nishii L (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal 56(6):1754-1774


Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.


Nour-mohammad Y, Saeed G, Hamed A (2011). The relationship between strategic processes of knowledge management and organizational intelligence. African Journal of Business Management 6(7):26262633.


Ratasuk A, Charoensukmongkol P (2020). Does cultural intelligence promote cross-cultural teams' knowledge sharing and innovation in the restaurant business?. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 12(2):183-203.


Reveron D (2009). Military engagement, strategy, and policy. International Journal of Military Strategy.


Rhodes RAW (1998). Different roads to unfamiliar places: UK experience în comparative perspective. Australian Journal of Public Administration 57(4):19-31.


Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A (2005). Smart PLS 2.0 M3 (beta).


Rothberg H, Erickson GS (2004). From Knowledge to Intelligence: Creating Competitive Advantage in the Next Economy, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, MA.


Rockstuhl T, Hong YY, Ng KY, Ang S, Chiu CY (2010). The culturally intelligent brain: From detecting to bridging cultural differences. NeuroLeadership Institute 3(1-15).


Rosenbloom DH (1993) Editorial: have an administrative rx? Don't forget the politics! Public Administration Review 53(6):503-507.


Samaratunge R, Alam Q, Teicher J (2008). The new public management reforms in Asia: A comparison of South and Southeast Asian countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences 74(1):25-46.


Savoie DJ (1995). What is wrong with the new public management? Canadian Public Administration 38(1):112-121.


Schaffer BS, Riordan CM (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods 6(2):169-215.


Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research 99(6):323-337.


Shore LM, Randel AE, Chung BG, Dean MA, Holcombe Ehrhart K, Singh G (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research Journal of Management 37(4):1262-1289.


Stark A (2002). What is the new public management? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12(1):137-151.


Staškevi?i?t? I, ?iutien? R (2008). Processes of university organisational intelligence: empirical research. Engineering Economics 60(5).


Stonehouse GH, Pemberton JD (1999). Leaning and knowledge management in the intelligent organization. Participation and Empowerment: An International Journal 7(5):131-144.


Tapscott D, Williams AD, Herman D (2008). Transforming government and governance for the twenty-first century. Government 2.


Teece DJ (2000). Managing Intellectual Capital: Organizational, Strategic, and Policy Dimensions. Oxford University Press: Oxford.


Tsui E (2005). The role of IT in KM: where are we now and where are we heading? Journal of Knowledge Management 9(1):3-6.


Vigoda-Gadot E (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review 62(5):527-540.


Wise LR (2002). Public management reform: competing drivers of change. Public Administration Review 62(5):556-567.


Zhu X, Law KS, Sun C, Yang D (2019). Thriving of employees with disabilities: The roles of job self?efficacy, inclusion, and team?learning climate. Human resource management 58(1):21-34.