Sustainable innovation in the context of organizational cultural diversity: The role of cultural intelligence and knowledge sharing

With the in-depth development of globalization, individuals are increasingly embedded in a culturally diverse environment. Effective communication and management ability (Cultural Intelligence) of employees in this type of diverse and heterogeneous environment impacts behavior and performance, affecting the sustainable innovation ability of organizations. Researchers have not yet fully assessed the impact of individuals’ cross-cultural management ability on sustainable innovation. Using Cultural Intelligence Theory and Trait Activation Theory, this paper discusses the influence of individual cultural intelligence on sustainable innovation behavior. The results showed that employees’ cultural intelligence positively affected their sustainable innovation behavior. Employee knowledge sharing plays an mediating role between intelligence and behavior. Differences in organizational culture have a negative moderating effect on the impact of employees’ cultural intelligence on knowledge sharing and sustainable innovation behaviors. The research results provide theoretical guidance for managing organizational cultural diversity and advancing cultural intelligence and sustainable innovation behaviors among employees.


Abstract:
With the in-depth development of globalization, individuals are increasingly embedded in a culturally diverse environment. Effective communication and management ability (Cultural Intelligence) of employees in this type of diverse and heterogeneous environment impacts behavior and performance, affecting the sustainable innovation ability of organizations. Researchers have not yet fully assessed the impact of individuals' cross-cultural management ability on sustainable innovation. Using Cultural Intelligence Theory and Trait Activation Theory, this paper discusses the influence of individual cultural intelligence on sustainable innovation behavior. The results showed that employees' cultural intelligence positively affected their sustainable innovation behavior. Employee knowledge sharing plays an mediating role between intelligence and behavior. Differences in organizational culture have a negative moderating effect on the impact of employees' cultural intelligence on knowledge sharing and sustainable innovation behaviors. The research results provide theoretical guidance for managing organizational cultural diversity and advancing cultural intelligence and sustainable innovation behaviors among employees. where the cultural differences are increasingly visible due to the diversity of organizational 99 culture. As such, the factors influencing employees' sustainable innovation behavior deserve 100 more attention. 101 An employee's ability to manage cultural diversity is an individual ability index that 102 deserves special attention. To explore the reality that some people communicate and perform 103 better than others in the context of cultural diversity, Earley and Ang (2003) proposed the 104 concept of "Cultural Intelligence" (CQ), defining it as an individual's ability to play a role and 105 effectively manage in the context of cross-cultural environment or cultural diversity [20]. 106 Scholarly studies have shown that individuals with higher cultural intelligence have higher job 107 performance with respect to cross-cultural adaptation, cross-cultural communication, and job 108 adjustment [21,22]. CQ also impacts an individual psychological well-being, interpersonal 109 trust, and knowledge interaction [23,24]. Therefore, as a unique index of individual ability and 110 as an indicator of cross-cultural interaction ability, cultural intelligence has received more 111 attention by scholars. However, few studies have examined how cultural intelligence affects 112 employees' continuous innovation behavior, leading to a lack of understanding of this area. 113 Knowledge sharing is defined here as individual behaviors that help others or cooperate 114 with others to solve problems and conceive new ideas by sharing information and knowledge 115 [25]. Factors influencing knowledge sharing include subjective factors, knowledge 116 characteristics, organizational factors, and situational factors. Knowledge sharing impacts the 117 output, competitiveness, and performance of individuals, teams, and organizations [26][27][28]. 118 Some studies have demonstrated the impact of knowledge sharing on employees' innovation 119 behaviors, particularly focusing on its bridging role as an intermediary factor [29,30]. This 120 study focuses on the issue of knowledge sharing from the perspective of cultural diversity, and 121 examines the influence of individual cross-cultural management ability (CQ) on knowledge 122 sharing behavior and willingness. It also examines the issue of knowledge sharing among 123 employees when encountering changes in organizational culture differences. 124 Compared with the existing research, this study provides new insights about the 125 sustainable innovation behavior of employees in the context of organizational cultural diversity. 126 First, previous studies on individual innovation behavior have not considered the impact of 127 employee diversity cultural management ability (CQ). The impact of employee cultural 128 intelligence, as an individual's cross-cultural ability and trait, on an employee's sustainable 129 innovation behavior deserves further study. Second, previous studies on the impact of 130 organizational culture on employees' innovation behavior have considered specific aspects, but 131 have not integrated cross-cultural ability, the organizational culture situation, and knowledge 132 interaction. Third, although the impact of knowledge sharing on employee innovation behavior 133 has been empirically verified, more research is needed to assess whether employees are willing 134 to share knowledge with colleague with different cultural backgrounds in the context of 135 organizational cultural diversity. 136 Therefore, based on the background of organizational cultural diversity, this study applied 137 an empirical analysis to investigate the internal mechanism and boundary conditions of the 138 impact of employee cultural intelligence on employees' sustainable innovation behavior. It also 139 explored the mediating role of knowledge sharing and the moderating role of the degree of 140 organizational cultural difference. This study integrated individual competence, organizational 141 context, and knowledge interaction factors into an integrated model that considers the 142 sustainable innovation behaviors of employees in the organization. Study conclusions provide 143 a theoretical basis for enterprises to pay attention to employees' cultural intelligence to facilitate 144 employees' continuous innovation and realize the sustainable development of enterprises. The 145 research related to organizational cultural diversity is also expanded at the individual level. 146 Based on the Theory of Multiple Intelligence (Gardner, 1983) and Sternberg and 150

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Detterman's (1986) multiple-loci framework of intelligences [31,32], Earley and Ang (2003) 151 developed the concept of "Cultural Intelligence" (CQ), which assesses an individual's ability 152 to effectively adapt to the new cultural environment [20]. Ang et al. (2007) further improved 153 the definition: CQ reflects an individual's capability to function and manage effectively in a 154 culturally diverse environment. CQ is a specific form of intelligence, focused on the capability 155 to grasp, reason, and behave effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity [33]. 156 After the concept of CQ was proposed, many scholars studied the connotation, structural 157 dimension, influencing factors, and influencing effects of CQ, forming a systematic Theory of 158 Cultural Intelligence [21,34,35]. CQ is widely used in management, psychology, education, 159 and other fields to measure an individual's cross-cultural adaptability, communication level, 160 task performance, and innovation ability [36][37][38][39]. With the deepening of global economic 161 integration, cross-border communication has become the norm; employee expatriation and 162 cross-cultural activities have become increasingly frequent; innovation has increasingly 163 become a transnational and trans-regional cooperation model. Given this background, the study 164 of employee cultural intelligence is an important and meaningful subject. 165

Sustainable innovation behavior of employees 166
Most scholars have found that the sustainable development of organizations requires 167 innovation [40]. The study of sustainable innovation is a research problem that has been, and 168 will likely remain, a current issue. Human resource management, technology research and 169 development, environmental protection, and market development are current hot topics in the 170 sustainable innovation of organizations [41,42]. In the field of organizational management, 171 researchers focus on the impact of enterprise strategy and organizational leadership on 172 sustainable innovation [43,44], but have not fully explored the sustainable innovation behavior 173 of grassroots employees. However, the continuous innovation of individuals is the foundation 174 of the sustainable development of the organization. Focusing on the innovation behavior of 175 grassroots employees in the workplace may support development opportunities for the 176 organization; similarly, the sustainable innovation of employees requires organizational 177 support. The sustainable innovation of employees requires the support of the organizational 178 system, a supportive organizational culture, and the creative ability and characteristics of 179 employees themselves [19]. 180 Scott and Bruce (1994) viewed innovation as a multistage process, which is a collection Some scholars have studied employee creativity, which usually refers to the generation of 192 novel and valuable ideas, and which is theoretically similar to innovation behavior . Pieterse 193 (2010) proposed that individual innovative behavior and creativity are two different concepts 194 [48]; the purpose of creativity is to produce novel and useful ideas, whereas innovation behavior 195 mainly refers to the act of generating new ideas and translating those ideas into practice. 196 Creativity is considered as the first step of innovation and is key to forming sustainable 197 innovation behavior [46]. This study does not specifically distinguish creativity from 198 innovation behavior, and assumes they are similar. 199 2.1.3 The influence of cultural intelligence on sustainable innovation behavior 200 Tett and Burnett (2003) proposed Trait Activation Theory [49], which refers to the process 201 of an individual expressing his or her characteristics when faced with situational clues related 202 to personality. Trait Activation Theory clarifies how the external situation activates an 203 individual's internal traits and explore the organic connection between internal traits and 204 external situations [50]. CQ focuses on the capability of individuals to effectively manage in 205 the context of cultural diversity [21]; this is similar to Trait Activation Theory, which focuses 206 on the influence of the "person-environment" interaction on individual behavior. Employees' 207 innovation behavior is influenced by personal traits, and is reflected in personal ability, 208 psychological motivation, and behavior performance. CQ is a manifestation of personal 209 abilities and traits. Therefore, in culturally diverse organizations, employees' cross-cultural 210 communication and management ability will impact innovation behaviors. Pandey et al. (2019)  represents the cognitive ability of employees to gain cultural knowledge, and their motivation 239 and action to learn knowledge. This includes the cognition of knowledge sharing, knowledge 240 sharing motivation, and behavior. Metacognition, cognition, and motivation can support and 241 encourage knowledge learning and sharing among employees, whereas behavior reflects 242 actions and the results of that knowledge sharing [56,57]. Based on the analysis above, the 243 following hypothesis is proposed. 244 Hypothesis 2 (H2) : Employee' CQ has a positive influence on knowledge sharing. 245

Knowledge sharing and sustainable innovative behavior 246
Knowledge is considered a core resource for an organization. One of the most important 247 purposes of knowledge management is to create value for enterprise development through the 248 exchange, application, and innovation of enterprise knowledge [58]. An increasing number of 249 researchers have proposed that knowledge management is a key success factor for an 250 organization in building competitive advantage, and knowledge sharing is an important way for 251 members of an organization to acquire knowledge [59,60]. Organizational innovation relies on 252 enterprise knowledge, which is inseparable from active employee participation and knowledge 253 sharing [61]. 254 Social exchange theory (Homans,1958)  [67]. Hofstede (1984) proposes that culture is the "common psychological procedure" that 290 distinguishes one kind of people from others [68]. Most comparative studies focusing on culture 291 and cross-cultural management have focused on national, religious, and ethnic cultural 292 differences, or individual demographic differences . They have not, however, fully considered 293 group differences in organizational culture. In fact, organizational culture reflects the cultural 294 characteristics of the country, region, and industry where the organization is located, and 295 reflects many different sub-cultures (subcultures) within the organization, which may be 296 fragmented, complementary, and even opposed [69]. 297 Organizational culture refers to the common values, beliefs, or expectations within an 298 enterprise. Organizational culture partly assimilates the value orientation, attitude, and code of 299 conduct of employees from different cultural backgrounds, forming a converged value system 300 [70]. However, due to the diversity of organizational culture, there can be a simultaneous 301 convergence and alienation of organizational culture [71]. Organizational cultural differences 302 represent the characteristics of a diverse organizational culture, which are manifested as the 303 differences in the attitudes and behaviors of the organization's members. These have a 304 sustainable impact on the communication methods and work behaviors of employees. 305 Diversity climate theory and related studies have proposed that employee attitudes towards 306 others depends on how organizations treat them, and the diversity climate of organizations 307 cause an infectious process [72]. Organizational culture difference is a significant manifestation 308 of organizational diversity, which affects organizational working climate and employee 309 behavior. Trait activation theory (Tett,2003) emphasizes the matching of individual traits and 310 organizational climate, highlighting that individual traits are activated when the organizational 311 climate accepts those traits [49]. Employee innovation behavior and knowledge sharing 312 motivation are influenced by the interaction between individual characteristics (such as CQ) 313 and the organizational cultural environment. Therefore, based on diversity climate theory and 314 trait activation theory, and the above analysis of organizational culture differences, we 315 hypothesize that organizational culture differences, as an important factor influencing 316 organizational climate, play a moderating role in the relationship between CQ and employees' 317 sustainable innovation behavior, CQ, and knowledge sharing. 318 Hypothesis 5 (H5) : Organizational cultural differences have a moderating effect on the 319 relationship between CQ and employee knowledge sharing. 320 Hypothesis 6 (H6) : Organizational culture differences have a moderating effect on the 321 relationship between CQ and employees' sustainable innovation behavior. 322

Conceptual model 323
This paper studies the influence of an employee's cultural intelligence on sustainable 324 innovation behaviors, and analyzes the mediating effect of knowledge sharing and the 325 moderating effect of organizational culture differences. Based on the above theoretical analysis 326 and hypotheses, the following conceptual model is proposed: 327 Figure 1. Conceptual model (This is the Fig 1 legend.) 328

Samples and data 330
Questionnaires were collected from Chinese employees in 31 enterprises across 9 331 industries, including manufacturing, the financial industry, education and training, and others. 332 A total of 450 questionnaires were issued and 395 questionnaires were received in return. After 333 eliminating invalid questionnaires with incomplete answers or identical answers across the 334 survey, 326 valid questionnaires remained, making the effective rate of the questionnaire 335 72.44%. Respondents were 50.89% male and 49.11% female; 64.29% of respondents reported 336 holding a Bachelor degree; the others held a junior college degree or below, or graduate degree 337 or above. Grass-roots staff accounted for 63.1% of respondents, grass-roots managers made up 338 19.64%, and the rest were middle and senior managers. In terms of experience, 19.35% of 339 respondents had less than one year experience; 18.75% had 1-2 years; 22.32% had 3-5 years; 340 24.11% had 5-10 years; and 15.48% had more than 10 years experience. Respondents reported 341 working in the areas of technical research, production and operation, marketing, finance, e-342 commerce, comprehensive management, and other areas. The questionnaires were distributed 343 anonymously, and the statistical results aligned with survey rules. 344

Measures 345
(1) Cultural intelligence: As noted above, Ang et al (2007). (2) Sustainable innovation behavior: Individual innovation is the process of generating 359 and implementing new ideas. Many scholars measure employees' innovation behaviors from 360 the perspective of process [45,74]. This study adopted the Innovation Behavior Scale 361 developed by Scott and Bruce (1994), which is widely cited and shows high reliability. Based 362 on the research background of sustainable innovation, this study modified the items, adding 363 frequency adverbs such as "often," "constantly," and "usually" to reflect the sustainability of 364 employees' innovation behavior. Sample items include: "I often come up with creative ideas" 365 and "I usually find ways to get the resources I need to realize my creative ideas." The Cronbach's 366 α of the original questionnaire was 0.916. 367 (3) Knowledge sharing: This study analyzed the willingness and behavior of organization 368 members to share knowledge from the perspective of cross-cultural communication. As such, 369 a scale developed by Faraj and Sproull (2000) was used for reference [75]. Srivastava et al. 370 (2006) applied the scale in a study on employee relations, to measure the degree of knowledge 371 sharing among organization members [76]. The questionnaire contains 4 items, such as: "The 372 more knowledgeable members will provide the other members with knowledge or skills that 373 are difficult to acquire for free" and "Members of the organization share their unique knowledge 374 and expertise with each other." The Cronbach's α of the original questionnaire was 0.84. 375 were set as dummy variables and were assigned values based on type and range. For example, 390 "1" was set for male and "2" was set for female. The years of work experience were divided 391 into "less than 1 year," "1-2 years," "3-5 years," and other levels. The education level variable 392 was divided into junior college, undergraduate, and graduate degree and above. 393

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) 395
In this study, the variables were measured using a maturity scale; an exploratory factor 396 analysis are not required. Reliability and validity analyses were conducted using the 397 measurement data. Variable verification factor analysis forms the basis for a latent variable 398 analysis of a structural equation model [78]. The software package SPSS 23.0 was used for 399 basic data processing. The Cronbach's α of the four variable items in the questionnaire were 400 preliminarily calculated using a reliability analysis. The results showed that the Cronbach's α 401 values of the items all exceeded 0.7. This indicated that the measurement items had a good 402 explanatory ability. Cultural intelligence was assessed using 4 dimensions and 12 measurement 403 items; as such, a second-order CFA was considered. In this study, Mplus7.4 is used for the 404 confirmatory factor analysis. 405 The next step was a confirmatory factor analysis of the CQ. In the first-order CQ CFA 406 model, the lowest correlation coefficient between the four dimensions was 0.47 (P<0.001). This 407 indicated that the first-order factor analysis was suitable for an upgrade to the second-order 408 CFA model. In the second-order model, the minimum factor loading of four dimensions was 409 0.755 (>0.7). This indicated that the second-order factor explained the variance with a higher 410 first-order factor. Meanwhile, a comparison of the chi-square values (χ2) of the first-order CFA 411 and second-order CFA revealed that the target coefficient T value (χ2 of the first-order model 412 and χ2 of the second-order model) was 94.35%. This indicated that the second-order model 413 better explained the first-order model [79]. Based on the principle of simplification, the second-414 order CFA model was adopted to analyze the CQ. In the second-order CFA model, the items 415 were modified to remove the two items affecting the residual independence and the 416 measurement effect of the model due to the relatively low factor loading. Table 1 shows the 417 specific analysis. 418  Table 1 shows that the factor loadings were all greater than 0.7, with a significant P-value. 421 The combinatorial reliability (CR) of both the first-order model and the second-order model 422 exceeded 0.7, showing good internal consistency and a good ability to interpret the dimensions. 423 The average variance extraction (AVE) represents the extraction amount of mean variance. The 424 AVE exceeded 0.5; the dimension had a good average ability to explain the variables; and the 425 fitting indexes of the model met the requirements. 426 To conduct a confirmatory factor analysis for other variables, there were 6 questions on 427 employee sustainable innovation behavior (SIB), 4 questions on organizational knowledge 428 sharing (KS), and 9 questions on organizational culture differences (OCD). The measurement 429 model found that the standardized factor loadings of the 4 items related to knowledge sharing 430 were high, and the model had a good degree of fit. Therefore, it was not necessary to modify 431 the model. Factor loadings for 3 items related to employees' sustainable innovation behavior 432 and organizational culture difference were lower than 0.6. The main fitting index of the model 433 (1<χ2/df<3) was lower than 3. This indicated that the residual error values of some 434 measurement items were not independent and were strongly correlated, and needed to be 435 revised. Based on the modification index given by Mplus7.4 analysis, 2 items related to 436 employees' sustainable innovation behavior and 4 items related to organizational culture 437 differences were deleted. The modified factor loadings and reliability and validity analysis of 438 the model are shown in  The data analysis in Table 2 shows that the standardized estimate coefficients of the four 446 variables' items and dimensions all exceeded 0.6; the standard error/estimate values were all 447 greater than 1.96; and the P-value was less than 0.001. All the items and dimensions were 448 significant. The item reliability is the square of the standardized estimate: a value greater than 449 0.36 is good and a value greater than 0.5 is very good. The analysis resulted in an R-square 450 value greater than 0.36. The combined reliability (CR) of the four latent variables exceeded 0.7, 451 showing good internal consistency and indicating that the dimensions had a good interpretation 452 ability. The convergence validity (AVE) was greater than 0.5, and the average explanatory 453 ability of the dimension was good. 454

Discriminant validity 455
According to Fornellr and Larcker (1981) , the triangle below the diagonal of the 456 correlation coefficient matrix of variables represents the square root of AVE [80]. The values 457 of the square root of AVE were compared with the coefficients of other related dimensions. 458 Table 3 shows that the square root of AVE was greater than the correlation coefficient of other 459 dimensions. This indicated there was significant discriminant validity between the model 460 dimensions. 461   Table 4 shows the specific model fitting results. The results 482 indicated that the fitting index of the SEM conformed to the recommended value, and there was 483 only a small difference between the sample and the model. As such, the model has a high 484 suitability. 485  Table 5 shows the path analysis of the SEM and the correlation of all variables after adding 488 the moderator variable. The impact of employee cultural intelligence on sustainable innovation 489 behavior was significant (r=0.593, P<0.001); the impact of cultural intelligence on knowledge 490 sharing was significant (r=0.462, P<0.001); and the impact of knowledge sharing on employee 491 sustainable innovation behavior was significant (r=0.103, P<0.05). These results again verified 492 Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2, and Hypothesis 3. The interaction between cultural intelligence 493 and organizational culture difference (CQOCD) significantly influenced knowledge sharing 494 (r=-0.119, P<0.05), indicating that organizational culture difference had a moderating effect on 495 the relationship between CQ and employees' knowledge sharing behavior. This verified 496 Hypothesis 5. The interaction between cultural intelligence and organizational culture 497 difference (CQOCD) had no significant influence on employees' sustainable innovation 498 behavior (R =-0.004, P=0.959). This indicated that organizational culture difference had no 499 moderating effect on the relationship between CQ and employees' sustainable innovation 500 behavior. As a result, Hypothesis 6 was not supported. 501 The classic mediating effect test method is the stepwise method proposed by Baron and 505 Kenny (1986) [81]; however, this method does not allow the observation of the neutralization 506 and masking effects of mediating variables. The Sobel test assumes the normal distribution of 507 interaction terms; however, the product (interaction) of two coefficients is usually not normal, 508 causing that test to be questioned. Currently, the Bootstrap method with bias correction is more 509 popular, with an increasing number of scholars accepting that it has higher testing power and 510 more accurate confidence interval [82]. The bootstrap method in Mplus7.4 was used to further 511 test the mediating effect of knowledge sharing. Table 6 shows the test results and indicates that 512 the path coefficient of the mediating effect of knowledge sharing between employee CQ and 513 sustainable innovation behavior is 0.100; the 95% CI (confidence interval) of the deviation 514 correction is =[0.012,0.188]. The upper and lower limits of the confidence intervals don't 515 include 0, demonstrating the presence of an indirect mediating effect. This supports Hypothesis 516 4. Meanwhile, Table 6 compares the mediating effect, total effect, and the influencing effect of 517 CQ on sustainable innovation behavior. 518 The path analysis of the SEM verified Hypothesis 5. Organizational culture differences 522 have a moderating effect on the relationship between CQ and employees' knowledge sharing 523 behavior. Hypothesis 6 was not supported. Organizational cultural differences had no 524 moderating effect on the relationship between CQ and employees' innovation behaviors (Table  525 5). To further analyze Hypothesis 5, the interaction between CQ and organizational culture 526 difference was decomposed based on the study of Aiken and West (1991) [83], and a slope 527 analysis was conducted using the limits of one standard deviation above and one standard 528 deviation below the variable mean. These analyses illustrated the impact of CQ on knowledge 529 sharing when there are organizational culture differences (Figure 3). The figure shows that the 530 organizational culture difference had a clear moderating effect. 531 In the context of organizational cultural diversity, employees with high CQ, such as those 550 with strong cross-cultural management and communication skills, are more likely to generate 551 innovative ideas and put them into action. Employees with high CQ are more likely to share 552 knowledge with others, and those knowledge sharing behaviors further promote the generation 553 of innovative ideas and employee behavior. In the context of cultural diversity, cultural 554 consistency and cultural difference coexist within an organization. When the consistency of 555 organizational culture is strong, the cultural difference is small and employees with a high CQ 556 are more likely to share knowledge with others. This facilitates innovation. In contrast, when 557 cultural differences become larger, knowledge sharing may be weakened. Therefore, the 558 interaction between organizational cultural differences and knowledge sharing may negatively 559 affect sustainable innovation behaviors. These theoretical results are consistent with the 560 management practice of strengthening corporate culture construction and unifying values to 561 promote corporate development. 562 It is important to examine Hypothesis 6, which was not supported. Organizational culture 563 difference was found to have no significant moderating effect on the relationship between 564 employees' CQ and sustainable innovation behavior. Employee CQ was found to promote 565 sustainable innovation behavior, however, the interaction between organizational culture 566 differences and CQ had no significant relationship with sustainable innovation behavior. These 567 results showed that the relationship between CQ and sustainable innovation was not sensitive 568 to the change of organizational culture differences. This may be because the sustainable 569 innovation behaviors of employees reporting a high CQ were not directly related to the 570 differences of organizational culture. Employees with high CQ reported having strong cultural 571 metacognition, understanding more diverse cultural knowledge, having strong cross-cultural 572 motivation and, take the initiative to adjust cross-cultural behaviors. Employees with high CQ 573 reported being more likely to adapt to cultural diversity and were less sensitive to cultural 574 differences. This may also be because of the complementary effect between CQ and 575 organizational culture differences, resulting in no significant relationship with innovation 576 behavior. 577

Theoretical significance 578
(1) This study expanded our understanding of antecedent variables and the production 579 mechanism of employees' sustainable innovation behavior. Previous studies have paid less 580 attention to the individual's cultural diversity management ability. Therefore, CQ was used as 581 an antecedent variable to measure the communication and management performance of 582 employees in different organizational cultural environments. The study also incorporated the 583 hard-to-measure influencing factor of organizational cultural diversity into the analytical 584 framework of individual sustainable innovation behaviors. The study of individual innovation, 585 from the perspective of organizational culture management, provides a new way to study 586 employees' sustainable innovation behavior. 587 (2) This study enriches the existing research on CQ theory. Most studies on CQ theory 588 have focused on its influencing factors and have discussed its antecedent variables, such as the 589 Big Five personality, overseas experience, and employee training [21,23,84]. Most studies 590 examining the effect of CQ have focused on job performance, job adjustment, and cross-text 591 adaptability [23,34]. Few have evaluated sustainable innovation. Therefore, this research 592 enriches the research field of CQ theory. 593 (3) This paper combined cultural intelligence theory, self-determination theory, social 594 exchange theory, and organizational diversity climate theory to study employees' sustainable 595 innovation behavior. Adding knowledge-sharing factors captured the interaction between 596 individuals and organizations as mediating variables, and considered the moderating effect of 597 organizational cultural differences. We integrated several theories related to innovation 598 behavior into a unified analytical framework and realized the integration of theories. 599

Administration recommendations 600
The results above highlight several recommendations for consideration. First, it is 601 important to strengthen the management of cultural diversity in organizations. The diversity of 602 organizational culture is an important intangible resource of an enterprise, and has a profound 603 impact on knowledge management and sustainable innovation. However, organizational culture 604 diversity is a double-edged sword. Some managers hold that diversity brings innovation and 605 high performance [2,85], and maximize cultural diversity in management practices (such as 606 human resource recruitment). Some studies have shown that cultural diversity can lead to 607 discrimination, conflicts, and differences, and eventually may become a cultural barrier to 608 sustainable development of organizations, therefore, consistency of organizational culture 609 should be advocated in management practice. 610 This study argues that it is more meaningful to discuss how to do a good job in managing 611 cultural diversity, rather than arguing about the pros and cons of cultural diversity. Therefore, 612 this paper discusses the influence of individual cross-cultural management ability (CQ) on 613 sustainable innovation behaviors, and calls on managers to strengthen cross-cultural 614 management. Through the research, we found that the organizational culture of some small and 615 medium-sized enterprises is somewhat spontaneous and fuzzy, and some of the newest 616 generation of employees are personalized [3,86] .This can lead to more cultural diversity within 617 the organization. However, the lack of management of cultural diversity in the enterprise has 618 formed cultural barriers, affecting employee innovation and development. Some other surveyed 619 companies, such as Huawei and Haier, have attached importance to cultural diversity 620 management and cultural intelligence training, and their employees have been reported to 621 perform better in sustainable innovation [87,88]. Cultural diversity management supports 622 sustainable innovation. Managers should improve employees' CQ through cross-cultural 623 experience and training, and control the level of organizational cultural differences. 624 The next recommendation is to improve employee cultural intelligence to achieve higher 625 performance. Cultural intelligence promotes innovative behavior and positively impacts 626 employee performance and job adaptation. Employees with high cultural intelligence may have 627 better communication skills with colleagues from different cultural backgrounds, may be more 628 adaptable, and may be able to better manage the organization's multicultural environment. 629 These are important employee characteristics and qualities. Therefore, in the process of human 630 resource recruitment, organizations should pay attention to cultural intelligence capabilities and 631 select staff with high cultural intelligence who can effectively integrate into the corporate 632 culture. In the field of human resources training, we should pay attention to cultivating 633 employees' cognitive abilities with respect to multi-culturalism, increase education about cross-634 cultural knowledge, and increase the use of cross-cultural experience projects to enhance 635 cultural intelligence. 636 The final recommendation is to improve the level of employee knowledge sharing. The 637 nature of knowledge sharing is interaction and learning, and while knowledge sharing reflects 638 an individual's behavior, it also forms an organizational climate. If the staff in the organization 639 are willing to share knowledge with others and learn from each other, it forms a transmission 640 mechanism that promotes innovative behavior. Therefore, managers should promote 641 knowledge-sharing behavior within the organization. This includes strengthening support for 642 knowledge-sharing behavior in performance appraisals, organizational culture, and system 643 construction, including through targeted performance awards, organized results sharing and 644 seminars, and the award of honorary titles. 645

Research limitations and prospects 646
There were three main limitations in this study, which highlight opportunities for future 647 research. First, there were limitations to the research sample. Study subjects represented 648 different industries, including education and training, manufacturing, finance, and e-commerce, 649 and reported engaging in different types of work. This leads to the advantage of having results 650 that are more universal; however, the study was not representative of a specific industry and 651 occupation. Future research could discuss specific industries or professions, such as finance or 652 technology, and discuss the impact of CQ on more specific sustainable innovation behaviors. 653 Second, there were limitations in the study's measurement scale. This study did not 654 develop a new scale; rather, it used mature scales. The advantage of this approach was that the 655 scale had a high level of reliability; however, this study involved organizational culture, and 656 different countries and regions have different organizational culture backgrounds. As such, the 657 scale may be biased. Future studies could avoid this problem by combining multiple research 658 methods and collecting data across multiple time stages. 659 Third, there were some limitations in research content. CQ is related to emotional 660 intelligence (EQ), general intelligence (IQ), self-efficacy, and other factors. However, these 661 were not studied in detail due to space and research model limitations. This may lead to some 662 confusion, and deserves future study. In addition, the relationship between organizational 663 cultural intelligence, organizational knowledge sharing climate, and organizational sustainable 664 innovation remains to be explored. These are areas for future research. 665 Despite these limitations, this study provided valuable insights about theoretical guidance 666 for managing organizational cultural diversity and advancing cultural intelligence and 667 sustainable innovation behaviors among employees. At the same time, we emphasized that 668 more attention should be paid to the management of cultural diversity and the sustainable 669 behavior of employees in the management practice. 670