Leadership in a Diverse and Multicultural Environment

Developing Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills

Mary L. Connerley, Paul B. Pedersen

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781544340371
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Organisational Behaviour
• Index: Business

Leadership in a Diverse and Multicultural Environment provides leaders with the tools necessary to effectively interact with all individuals. Although much of the research related to multiculturalism has focused on expatriates and international assignments, the book also focuses on leaders in domestic organizations, as they can benefit from developing their own multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills. Effective leaders can shape the culture of their organization to be accepting of individuals from all races, ethnicities, religions, and genders with a minimum of misunderstandings.

1

Making the Business Case
for Increased Awareness,
Knowledge, and Skills

Major Objective

---

To identify the business imperative for developing multiculturally aware, knowledgeable, and skillful leaders

Secondary Objectives

---

1. To identify the impact of both global and domestic demographic changes on the workforce
2. To discuss the similarities and differences between diversity and multi-culturalism
3. To discuss the need for multicultural skills
4. To explore the international perspective on multicultural diversity
5. To identify the value added by multiculturalism and diversity
6. To discuss the importance of focusing on leaders

Culture is a complex and dynamic topic that is very difficult for leaders, or anyone, for that matter, to deal with. It is often easier in the short run to ignore culture than to deal with its complexity, but leaders need to acknowledge their own cultural baggage as they understand the importance of gaining an awareness of culture. Ignoring culture is like driving down the highway and taking your hands off the steering wheel. You may have started out in the right direction, but the vehicle will quickly veer off in unintended directions.

National boundaries no longer define the world of organizations. The free movement of labor continues to intensify as organizations diversify geographically. This necessitates the effective interaction with broader constituencies as never before (see Siebert, 1999). Nestlé leads the world in external employment with 97% of its employees working outside of Switzerland, while 82% of Philips’s workforce is located somewhere other than the Netherlands. A multinational company like German auto parts supplier Bosch employs more than 180,000 employees in 32 countries. Many U.S. companies such as Ford and IBM have more than 50% of their employees outside of the United States, and AT&T, General Electric, PepsiCo, and General Motors all have between one third and one fifth of their employees working beyond U.S. borders (Workplace Visions, 2000).

However, staying within the borders of the United States does not necessarily result in workforces that are less multicultural compared to companies spanning different countries. Often when the term multicultural is heard, images of international scenarios come to mind. While the world of expatriate managers obviously includes a wealth of cultural issues, domestic companies are facing similar cultural realities. For example, it is estimated that Chinese individuals constitute 3% of New York City’s population, with 250,000 concentrated in Manhattan Island’s Chinatown (Swerdlow, 1998). A managing partner at one New York Life agency that has about 200 agents representing 21 nationalities states that language and cultural differences are the primary challenges facing his ethnic (African American,Asian Indian, and Hispanic) recruits (Ahmed, 2002). In addition, on any given day the Hotel@MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has between 140 and 150 employees who represent at least 40 countries of origin (“Serving the Multicultural Customer,” 2003), and at one Washington, D.C., hotel employees speak 36 different languages. It is important that more U.S. companies, and their leaders, recognize that if they find common ground by treating ALL employees, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, culture, gender, or age with fairness, dignity, and respect, value will be added to the company. It is our contention that the majority of leaders want to treat employees, clients, coworkers, suppliers, and everyone else with respect, but may not have the tools to do so.

Multiculturalism and Diversity

---

Diversity by definition focuses on differences, while multiculturalism focuses on aspects of multiple cultures. Heated debates still occur in determining the “correct” definition of diversity. Some scholars (e.g., Grossman, 2000; Linnehan & Konrad, 1999) advocate a definition that addresses power imbalances and reflects historical disadvantages (race and gender based). Rijsman (1997) suggests a definition that encompasses all difference. Others (e.g.,Fujimoto, Hartel, Hartel, & Baker, 2000; Hartel & Fujimoto, 2000) recognize the complementary nature of the views and advocate a definition that integrates aspects of both approaches. Some have bridged the gap with definitions of cultural diversity. Cox (1994) defines cultural diversity as “the representation, in one social system, of people with distinctly different group affiliations of cultural significance” (p. 6).

Diversity is often discussed in relation to legal requirements, equal employment opportunity (EEO), and affirmative action. Terms like protected groups, adverse impact, compliance, and lawsuit are also frequently associated with diversity programs. It was stated by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that employers could not discriminate on the bases of sex, race, color, ethnicity, or religion. These characteristics, along with more recent focus on disabilities, age, and sexual orientation, are commonly considered as part of organizations’ diversity initiatives. However, similar to academic scholars, practitioners also struggle with different views on defining diversity (Wellner, 2000).

Regardless of how diversity is defined, the adjustments that employees will make within an organization depend on the organization’s tolerance for ambiguity, the demand for conformity, and the value placed on diversity, cultural fit, and acculturation (Carr-Ruffino, 1996). Individuals can make one of four specific adjustments to an organization (Cox & Finley-Nickerson, 1991). Multiculturalism is often viewed as the most functional of four strategies or adjustments to deal with both cross-national and intranational diversity (Tung, 1993). A narrow view of multiculturalism focuses on being open to the positive aspects of all cultures and using this information to create new and meaningful ways of interacting. We posit that, while focusing on the positive is a great way to encourage a new relationship, acknowledging what one might consider the negative aspects of a culture is also important. This allows us to determine why we may view these specific aspects as negative, whether they are viewed as a negative characteristic by all, and how that might influence our relationship. For example, the indirect negotiating style of individuals from an Asian culture could be seen as a negative by an American leader. It may seem like a waste of valuable time, but not all see this as a negative. The context-rich style allows for many nuances that can be lost in a direct style and could provide important information for both the transaction and later dealings.

The least functional strategy or adjustment for dealing with diversity issues in companies is called separation. Separation involves rejecting all cultural values except your own. This can be thought of as a form of alienation. This of course causes a great deal of conflict between coworkers from different cultural backgrounds. Assimilation and deculturation fall between multiculturalism and separation. Assimilation is the adoption of the organization’s culture. This is usually seen by subordinate groups as conforming to the values of the dominant group. This strategy often produces mistrust in the long run if the dominant group does not attempt to understand the values of the subordinate group (Tung, 1993). Finally, deculturation is viewed as a weak or benign form of separation that occurs when all groups maintain their own values without trying to influence anyone else (McFarlin & Sweeney, 2003). One example would be an expatriate who does not understand an employee’s culture and has no desire to change that situation.

We recognize that cultural differences can arise from more than just geographic or ethnic differences. It is our premise that all the ways that make people diverse can also lead to cultural differences. Men and women raised in the same location experience the world in different ways, whether those differences are based on internal differences, external differences in the way they are treated by others, or a combination of the two. Generational differences can also reflect cultural differences. A 23-year-old middle-level manager for a parts distributor growing up in the same neighborhood that his 61-year-old boss was raised in will very likely represent a different culture compared to his boss. The same thing can be said for other sources of difference.

However, even though this book recognizes the many different influences on culture, we do not stray far from traditional views of multiculturalism, and want to bring into understanding that culture is influenced by much more than solely geographic location. Traditional views of multiculturalism suggest that it focuses on the many aspects of culture. This is no easy task for leaders as the number of major cultural groups is estimated to number at least 25, with several subgroups creating much diversity within each major cultural group (Conejo, 2002). The old idea of America representing a “melting pot” has been replaced by images of “stews” or “salads,” where everyone keeps his or her identity, which adds richness and flavor to the dish.

Multiculturalism Is Inclusive and Broadly Defined

---

The multicultural perspective seeks to provide a conceptual framework that recognizes the complex diversity of a plural society while, at the same time, suggesting bridges of shared concern that bind culturally different persons to one another. During the past 20 years, multiculturalism has become recognized as a powerful force, not just for understanding exotic groups but also for understanding ourselves and those with whom we work.

By defining culture broadly—to include within-group demographic variables (e.g., age, sex, place of residence), status variables (e.g., social, educational, economic), and affiliations (formal and informal), as well as ethnographic variables such as nationality, ethnicity, language, and religion—the construct “multicultural” becomes generic to all leader relationships. The narrow definition of culture has limited multiculturalism to what might more appropriately be called “multiethnic” or “multinational” relationships between groups with a shared sociocultural heritage that includes similarities of religion, history, and common ancestry. Ethnicity and nationality are important to individual and familial identity as one subset of culture, but the construct of culture—broadly defined—goes beyond national and ethnic boundaries. Persons from the same ethnic or nationality group may still experience cultural differences. Not all persons of color have the same experience, nor do all Asians, nor all American Indians, nor all Hispanics, nor all women, nor all old people, nor all disabled persons. No particular group is unimodal in its perspective. Therefore, the broad and inclusive definition of culture is particularly important in preparing leaders to deal with the complex differences among and between people they interact with from every cultural group.

Just as differentiation and integration are complementary processes, so are the emic (culture-specific) and etic (culture-general) perspectives necessarily interrelated. The terms emic and etic were borrowed from “phonemic” and “phonetic” analysis in linguistics describing the rules of language to imply a separation of general from specific aspects. Even Pike (1966), in his original conceptualization of this dichotomy, suggested that the two elements not be treated as a rigid dichotomy but as a way of presenting the same data from two viewpoints. Although research on the usefulness of emic and etic categories has been extensive, the notion of a “culture-free” (universal) etic has been just as elusive as the notion of a “culture-pure” (totally isolated) emic.

The basic problem facing leaders is how to describe behavior in terms that are true to a particular culture while at the same time comparing those behaviors with a similar pattern in one or more other cultures. Combining the specific and general viewpoints provides a multicultural perspective. This larger perspective is an essential starting point for leaders seeking to avoid cultural encapsulation by their own culture-specific assumptions (Sartorius, Pedersen, & Marsella, 1984).

There is a strong argument against the broad definition of culture. Triandis, Bontempo, Leung, and Hui (1990) distinguished between cultural, demographic, and personal constructs. Cultural constructs are those shared by persons speaking a particular dialect; living in the same geographical location during the same time; and sharing norms, roles, values, and associations, and ways of categorizing experience described as a “subjective culture” (Triandis, 1972). This view contends that demographic-level constructs deal with these same topics but are shared by only particular demographic groups within a culture, such as men and women or old and young. Personal-level constructs belong to still another category of individual differences and cannot be mean-ingfully interpreted with reference to demographic or cultural membership.

The problem with this perspective is that it tends to be arbitrary in defining the point at which shared constructs constitute cultural similarity, because, as Triandis et al. (1990) pointed out, we cannot expect that 100% of a sample agrees with a position. We decided, arbitrarily, that if 85% of a sample shares the construct, it is cultural. Similarly, if 85% of the men share it, we consider it gender linked. If less than 85% shares the construct we might examine whether it is shared by the majority of a sample, but if less than 50% of a sample shares the construct, we definitely do not consider it shared (p. 304).

Likewise, C. C. Lee (1991) made a persuasive argument against the broad definition of culture. Lee argued that the term multicultural is in imminent danger of becoming so inclusive as to be almost meaningless. The broad definition includes all constituent groups that perceive themselves as being disenfranchised in some fashion. This has resulted in diffusing the coherent conceptual framework of multiculturalism in training, teaching, and research. The term has been increasingly stretched to include virtually any group of people who consider themselves “different” (Locke, 1990). In responding to Fukuyama’s (1990) argument for a more universalist emphasis on culture for understanding the complex interacting systems of society, Locke (1990) suggested that the broad view of multicultural at best serves as a prologue for a narrow or “focused” perspective.

The distinction between individual differences and cultural differences is real and important. The cultural identities to which we belong are no more or less important than is our individual identity. Skin color at birth is an individual difference, but what that skin color has come to mean since birth is cultural. Although culture has traditionally been defined as a multigenerational phenomenon, the broad definition of culture suggests that cultural identities and culturally significant shared beliefs may develop in a contemporary horizontal as well as vertical historical time frame and still be distinguished from individual differences.

The Need for Multicultural Skills

---

Organizational viability depends increasingly upon the knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes of all workers. Management practices are needed that encourage innovation, high performance, and a learning culture that embraces all employees (Macdonald, 1995), regardless of the cultural similarity with their leaders. It is assumed, often incorrectly, that leaders with global skills will likely have multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills. Unfortunately, 85% of Fortune 500 firms believe there are insufficient numbers of employees with global leadership skills. According to the Center for Global Assignments survey, even when employees do possess global leadership skills, 60% said they are i...