Current Topics in Multicultural Management Presentation

User Generated


Business Finance


Current Topics in Multicultural Management

Create a PowerPoint presentation with detailed notes section that contains the following:

  • Incorporation and analysis of the Required Resources, including identification of any apparent gaps in the literature
  • An original research topic related to the week’s literature
  • Background information on the research topic, including identification of principal schools of thought, tendencies in the academic literature, or commonalities that define the academic scholarship regarding your topic
  • Evaluation of the main concepts with a focus on their application to business/management practice and their impact on positive social change
  • A minimum of 10 peer-reviewed, scholarly new references

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Presentation  Format     During  one  set  of  paired  weeks  in  this  course,  you  will  be  appointed  as  a  Presenter.   When  you  are  the  Presenter,  you  will  prepare  an  individual  academic  presentation,   much  like  a  poster  session.  Your  presentation  should  include  an  analysis  and  synthesis   of  prior  research,  and  your  presentation  begins  the  interaction  with  your  colleagues.  You   will  prepare  a  PowerPoint  presentation  of  7–10  slides  to  demonstrate  your   understanding  of  the  research.       Outline  for  Presentations     The  following  PowerPoint  presentation  outline  is  suggested:     Slide   Number   Slide  1   Slides  2–3   Slides  4–6   Slides  7–8   Slides  9–10   Contents  of  Slide  should  include:   Title  Slide—Weeks  X–X/Week  Title/Presenter  Name     An  incorporation  and  analysis  of  the  Required  Resources  from  this  pair  of  weeks,   including  identification  of  an  original  research  topic  (related  to  the  general  topic  for  the   week,  to  a  specific  reading  for  the  week,  or  to  apparent  gaps  in  the  literature)   An  identification  of  principal  schools  of  thought,  tendencies  in  the  academic  literature,   or  commonalities  that  define  the  academic  scholarship  regarding  your  topic   An  evaluation  of  the  main  concepts  with  a  focus  on  their  application  to   business/management  practice  and  their  impact  on  positive  social  change   APA-­formatted  References  slide(s)  (to  include  a  minimum  of  10  peer-­reviewed,   scholarly  new  references)     Guidelines  for  Presentations     You  must  use  APA  formatting  throughout  your  presentation  and  incorporate  direct   evidence  of  addressing  the  Learning  Objectives  from  this  2-­week  unit.  Each  of  the   content  slides  must  include  detailed  notes/paragraphs  in  the  Notes  section  with   appropriate  citation  of  peer-­reviewed,  scholarly  references.  Please  refer  to  the   Presentation  Rubric  for  specific  grading  elements  and  criteria.       Note:  If  you  choose  to  include  graphics  of  any  kind  in  your  presentation,  be  prepared  to   accommodate  participants  with  vision  loss.  Know  that  you  may  have  to  provide  a  written   description  of  graphic  or  pictorial  material  for  a  fellow  student  who  is  visually  impaired.         o   It  is  the  responsibility  of  any  participant  with  a  disability  that  limits  access  to   the  PowerPoint  presentations  to  contact  the  Instructor  and/or  Disability   Services  to  make  a  specific  request  regarding  this  assignment.   ©  2016  Laureate  Education,  Inc.     Page  1  of  1   姝 Academy of Management Review 2013, Vol. 38, No. 4, 525–549. MULTICULTURAL EMPLOYEES: A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW THEY CONTRIBUTE TO ORGANIZATIONS STACEY R. FITZSIMMONS Western Michigan University Organizations are experiencing a rise in a new demographic of employees— multicultural individuals, who identify with two or more cultures and have internalized associated cultural schemas. I create a map of possible ways to organize more than one cultural identity, based on identity integration, which ranges from separated to integrated, and identity plurality, which ranges from single to multiple. Cognitive and motivational mechanisms drawn from social identity theory explain how identity patterns then influence both benefits and challenges for multicultural employees, categorized into personal, social, and task outcomes. Organizational identification and organizational culture moderate relationships between multicultural identity patterns and outcomes. The framework presented in this article offers a theoretical basis for understanding how multicultural employees may contribute to their organizations. [Multicultural employees] belong to multiple worlds and carry those worlds with them; they are defined by ambivalence and complexity; they are leading the world in important new ways (Giridharadas, 2010). ticultural employees are a significant portion of the workforce. Despite large numbers of multicultural individuals, culturally oriented research continues to focus on the differences between cultures, as opposed to new opportunities presented by employees who straddle cultures (Kirkman & Law, 2005). Indeed, cross-cultural comparisons remain the most common form of international management research (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Tsui, 2007). In prior research scholars have demonstrated that multicultural societies (Jonsen, Maznevski, & Schneider, 2011), multicultural organizations (Joshi, 2006), and multicultural teams (Stahl, Mäkelä, Zander, & Maznevski, 2010; Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010) can all influence cross-cultural competence, which is the ability to work effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds (Johnson, Lenartowicz, & Apud, 2006). In this article I examine the next level in that research stream—namely, how multicultural employees contribute to their organizations. Drawing on mechanisms from social identity theory, I develop a framework that can be used to predict personal, social, and task outcomes across multicultural individuals and within both domestic and international organizations. My theoretical arguments integrate recent research focused on the positive outcomes of being multicultural with older research concerned with the negative Organizations are experiencing a rise in a new demographic of employees—multicultural employees, who identify with two or more cultures and have internalized associated cultural schemas (Brannen & Thomas, 2010). Immigration, long-term migration, and intercultural marriages are all producing increasing numbers of individuals who have internalized more than one culture. For example, first-generation immigrants make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, and 20 percent of the U.S. population speaks a language other than English at home. In Canada and Australia over 20 percent of the population is foreign born, and that number is 40 percent in Singapore (United Nations Statistics Division, 2011). Furthermore, children and grandchildren of migrants may also be multicultural, if raised within both heritage and current cultures. All of these statistics indicate that mulFor their generous feedback and encouragement on prior versions of this manuscript, I thank Mary Yoko Brannen, Mila Lazarova, and especially David C. Thomas. Thanks also to special issue editor Vicky Smith and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and perceptive comments. This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). 525 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 526 Academy of Management Review outcomes of being multicultural, allowing for a more complete understanding of the range of possible work-related outcomes. WHO ARE MULTICULTURAL INDIVIDUALS? Technically, individuals who have internalized two or more cultural schemas are multicultural, while those who have internalized two cultural schemas are bicultural, but I refer to them all as multicultural for the sake of consistency. It is worth noting that not all identities are internalized, such as identifying as Irish on St. Patrick’s Day or identifying as Danish because one has a distant Danish relative. When individuals internalize a cultural identity, they internalize the associated set of knowledge, beliefs, values, norms, habits, and domain-specific self-schemas (Markus, 1977). This set, called a “cultural schema,” then becomes available to the individual, although it is more likely to guide behavior when salient. Specifically, when identities become salient, they facilitate access to the set of knowledge, beliefs, values, norms, and so on stored in associated schemas. For example, cultural schemas become more accessible when in an intercultural environment or when travelling internationally (Brumbaugh, 2002; Markus, 1986). Together, cultural identities and cultural schemas help frame the findings from prior research on multicultural individuals. KNOWNS AND UNKNOWNS ABOUT MULTICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Early conceptualizations of multiculturalism portrayed the experience as individually detrimental (Park, 1928; Stonequist, 1937). Researchers theorized about the degree to which multicultural individuals were marginalized (Park, 1928), confused (Erikson, 1956), and conflicted (Prelinger & Zimet, 1964) and the degree to which they experienced identity stress and identity uncertainty (Baumeister, Shapiro, & Tice, 1985). Multicultural individuals were expected to either suffer from inadequately defined selves or feel torn between their multiple, and sometimes incompatible, selves (Baumeister et al., 1985). In contrast to early research, in current work psychologists have focused on the potential for positive outcomes of multiculturalism (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000). They have October found that multicultural identity patterns have an impact on outcomes such as cognitive complexity (Benet-Martínez, Lee, & Leu, 2006; Tadmor, Tetlock, & Peng, 2009) and adaptability (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2012). Meanwhile, cross-cultural management researchers have found that multiculturals’ identity patterns impact work-related outcomes, such as awareness of and ability to respond to cultural cues (Brannen, Garcia, & Thomas, 2009), as well as creativity (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & Lee, 2008; Cheng, Sanders, Sanchez-Burks et al., 2008). However, current research largely ignores the propositions developed by early researchers, perhaps because it is no longer socially acceptable to suggest that multicultural individuals suffer as a result of their multiple cultural identities. Despite significant progress in understanding multiculturals’ psychological and work-related outcomes, we still lack an overall framework that can be used to better understand multicultural individuals in organizations and to predict their range of work-related outcomes. Although some organizations, such as IBM and Siemens, are beginning to implement programs that develop cross-cultural competence among their multicultural employees, such as using cultural networks to promote knowledge transfer across sites (DiversityInc, 2009) and recruiting multicultural individuals (Siemens, 2009), two “unknowns” impede the ease with which organizations draw on the resources of their multicultural employees: (1) it is not yet clear how multicultural employees vary in their potential contributions, and (2) multicultural individuals are not well understood in the context of organizations (for notable exceptions see Bell, 1990; Brannen & Thomas, 2010; Hong, 2010; Lee, 2010). With respect to the former, when managers think of multicultural employees as a homogeneous group, or as a group that contributes to a narrow set of outcomes, they risk overlooking the variety of resources and challenges that these employees represent. For example, the New York Times article that supplied the opening quotation grouped bilingual individuals in the same category as those who have internalized three or more cultures to predict global leadership potential (Giridharadas, 2010). Without understanding variations in multicultural employees’ potential contributions to their organizations, we are left with a condition that may 2013 527 Fitzsimmons support ineffective organizational policies, such as systematically prioritizing all multicultural employees for globally oriented positions or disregarding variations among multicultural employees, positions, or organizational cultures. With respect to the latter unknown, only 4 out of 138 studies included in a recent review measured contextual variables (Yoon, Langrehr, & Ong, 2011). This gap is especially problematic for management researchers, since individuals’ work-related outcomes might not be consistent across organizational contexts (Johns, 2007). In order to make predictions about how multicultural employees might contribute to their workplaces, it is essential to understand the dimensions along which individuals mentally organize their multiple identity patterns; the antecedents and outcomes of each multicultural identity dimension, both positive and negative; and the effect of organizational context on the relationships between multicultural identity patterns and outcomes. In the sections that follow I address dimensions first, followed by antecedents, outcomes, and organizational context. A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING MULTICULTURAL IDENTITY PATTERNS The framework described here develops a basis for theorizing about multicultural employees’ range of workplace contributions. When individuals have more than one cultural schema—and, thus, more than one cultural identity—their identities are organized in cognition to facilitate sensemaking (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). Below I build an argument that identity integration, which ranges from separated to integrated, and identity plurality, which ranges from single to multiple, create a map of possible ways to organize more than one cultural identity (Figure 1). Identity integration is the extent to which individuals integrate their cultural identities versus keeping them separate (BenetMartínez & Haritatos, 2005), while identity plurality refers to the number of primary cultural identities, ranging from one to many. By primary cultural identity, I mean those identities that are highly accessible. For example, a multicultural individual could prioritize one culture over the other (single pattern), while another person might have three prioritized cultures (multiple FIGURE 1 Model of Multicultural Identity Dimensions Hybridizing Integrated Identity integration Single Multiple Identity plurality Prioritizing Aggregating Separated Compartmentalizing 528 Academy of Management Review pattern). As opposed to much cultural research that considers how the content of cultural identities influences behavior, this framework considers how their organization influences behavior. Together, these dimensions produce a map that can be used to compare different identity patterns. Identity dimensions are easiest to understand by contrasting the patterns positioned at their end points. Based on the two dimensions, four patterns emerge at the end points of each dimension: prioritizing, compartmentalizing, hybridizing, and aggregating. These patterns represent ideal types, not categories, because the dimensions are continuous, not categorical. Although the ideal types are useful for explaining the two dimensions, each multicultural individual is more likely represented by a blend of patterns. Illustrating the two extremes of identity plurality are prioritizing multiculturals, who organize multiple cultural identities hierarchically such that only one is primary, and aggregating multiculturals, who privilege three or more cultural identities. Prioritizing and aggregating multiculturals might have internalized the same number of cultural schemas, but they vary in the number of cultural identities they prioritize. The aggregating ideal type is related to merged (Roccas & Brewer, 2002), integrated (Pratt & Foreman, 2000), marginal, fused (Phinney & DevichNavarro, 1997), and cosmopolitan (Hannerz, 1990) patterns. It reduces differentiation between ingroup and outgroup members, because the ingroup is more heterogeneous than it is for other patterns (Park & Rothbart, 1982). Compared to aggregating, the prioritizing ideal type permits a simplified identity structure, where most phenomena are filtered through the corresponding prioritized cultural schema, with accents of the second or third cultures. The prioritizing ideal type is related to dominance (Roccas & Brewer, 2002) and deletion (Pratt & Foreman, 2000), although it does not rely on identities that are nested objectively (e.g., Sunni and Shiite identities are always nested within Muslim identity), as the dominance pattern does (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Prioritized patterns can exist regardless of any objective hierarchical relation among identities (e.g., Basque within Spanish within European). Illustrating the end points of identity integration, compartmentalizing multiculturals see October their identities as separate and identify with one or the other, depending on the context, while hybridizing multiculturals see their identities as integrated. The compartmentalizing ideal type organizes multiple cultural identities by retaining all of them yet separating them by context, which is similar to the alternating (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997) and compartmentalized patterns (Pratt & Foreman, 2000; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). In contrast, the hybridizing ideal type identifies with the intersection of cultures, similar to intersection (Roccas & Brewer, 2002), aggregated (Pratt & Foreman, 2000), and blended patterns (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997). For example, hybridizing Chinese Canadians will identify with other Chinese Canadians as their ingroup (more than with Canadians or Chinese). The identity integration dimension has been shown to significantly influence multiculturals’ frame-switching behavior, creativity, and other outcomes (Cheng, Lee, & BenetMartínez, 2006; Cheng, Sanders, Sanchez-Burks et al. 2008). With these two dimensions, an unlimited number of potential patterns can emerge, not limited to the four ideal types at the end points of each dimension. In sum, multicultural individuals’ identities can be represented by the map of possible organizing patterns created by identity integration and identity plurality dimensions. In order to arrive at these identity patterns, multicultural individuals interpret a set of antecedents through the dual desires to reduce uncertainty (cognitive mechanism) and increase self-esteem (motivational mechanism). ANTECEDENTS OF CULTURAL IDENTITY PATTERNS I based the propositions explaining how different identity patterns arise on individuals’ unique sets of experiences and situations. However, relationships between antecedents and multiculturalism patterns are probabilistic, not deterministic, because the mechanisms linking antecedents to patterns represent individual interpretations of exogenous antecedents. The mechanisms described below are present across multicultural individuals, but the extent to which they apply varies with individual differences, such as personality or the need for cognitive closure (Leung & Chiu, 2010). Thus, two multicultural individuals with the same set of 2013 Fitzsimmons antecedents could form different identity patterns, because differences in cognition or motivation could produce different interpretations of the antecedents. For example, two individuals may both prioritize the identity(ies) with the highest potential to enhance self-esteem, based on perceptions of group prestige. However, they may end up prioritizing different identities, because one may conclude that a politically charged subculture has higher group prestige, whereas the other may conclude that the mainstream culture has higher prestige and is therefore best for increasing self-esteem. Similarly, variation in the extent to which individuals are comfortable with cognitive inconsistencies may affect the degree to which they are drawn to consistent identity patterns over inconsistent patterns (Elliot & Devine, 1994; Leung & Chiu, 2010; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; RotheramBorus, 1990). According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), people sort others and themselves into social groups in order to reduce uncertainty, and they positively differentiate their own ingroups from outgroups in order to enhance selfesteem. Self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) describes one aspect of social identity theory— namely, how people categorize themselves in groups based on the groups’ relative salience, distinctiveness, and perceived prestige (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Salience refers to how easily a category comes to mind— or accessibility— while distinctiveness refers to the uniqueness of a particular group. Perceived prestige refers to an individual’s subjective judgment of cultures, not an objective ranking of cultural groups (Bartels, Pruyn, De Jong, & Joustra, 2007). Individuals are more likely to identify with groups that they see as having increased salience, distinctiveness, and prestige as compared to other groups. Therefore, these characteristics became criteria for inclusion of antecedents in the current framework. Three categories of antecedents— personal history, current context, and cultural content—meet the following criteria for inclusion: stable and long term, exogenous to the individual, and related to perceived group prestige, salience, and distinctiveness, the three drivers of identification in social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Personal history refers to a person’s family and context during childhood and adolescence. 529 Identity research often focuses on this time period (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Phinney, 1990; Poston, 1990) because identity development occurs to the greatest degree during adolescence (Erikson, 1963). Current context refers to large-scale context, such as region, country, or city. Cultural content refers to the values, norms, beliefs, or behaviors normally associated with each culture. My propositions predict that current context and cultural content antecedents are related to identity integration through the cognitive desire to reduce uncertainty, while personal history antecedents are related to identity plurality through the motivational desire to increase self-esteem, which I explain next. Personal History Antecedents Personal history influences whether individuals are motivated to identify primarily with a single culture or with multiple cultures (identity plurality dimension) by influencing the way people perceive the prestige of cultural groups. Social identity research reveals that people are motivated to increase self-esteem by identifying with prestigious groups and by positively differentiating their own social groups from others (Turner et al., 1987). I label this the motivational mechanism. Perceived prestige does not refer to an objective ranking of cultural groups. Instead, it refers to an individual’s subjective judgment of cultures, where multicultural individuals are motivated to identify with the culture(s) they evaluate most positively (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). The stability of perceived prestige depends on the stability of each individual’s set of referent groups, against which the individual evaluates his or her own groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1987). It follows that subjective judgments of relative group prestige should predict whether multicultural individuals will be motivated to identify primarily with a single cultural group or evenly across multiple groups. This mechanism can either precede or reinforce internalization of a cultural schema, where individuals who are motivated to identify with a culture will then surround themselves with cultural artefacts, such as people and media from that culture, supporting the process of internalizing that culture’s schema. Affect can influence the subjective perception of group prestige. Although Tajfel (1982) origi- 530 Academy of Management Review nally claimed that affect was an important factor in how people define their social groups, the role of affect dwindled over time as social identity research became associated with cognitive experimental research on minimal groups (Chao & Moon, 2005; Park & Judd, 2005). The minimal group studies consistently demonstrated that when people identify with groups— even temporary, random groups—they will subsequently evaluate their own groups more positively than others in order to increase selfesteem through association with the higherprestige group (Park & Judd, 2005). Despite Tajfel’s involvement with the minimal group studies, he insisted that affect also precedes self-categorization (Park & Judd, 2005), wherein individuals first make value judgments of groups and then categorize themselves within the group that they evaluate more positively. It follows that causality likely runs in both directions: judgments of cultural group prestige lead to identification with higher-prestige groups, and identification with groups leads to positive differentiation of one’s own cultural groups as compared to others. Therefore, individuals are motivated to categorize themselves in groups they perceive to have higher prestige so as to increase selfesteem (Park & Judd, 2005). Individuals who perceive prestige to be high in more than one culture will be motivated to identify with both or all groups, resulting in higher identity plurality. In contrast, individuals who perceive only one culture as highly prestigious will be motivated to identify primarily with that group, resulting in lower identity plurality. Personal perceptions of cultural prestige stem from individuals’ interpretations of their own personal experiences (Cheng & Lee, 2009), not from objective rankings of group prestige. This is especially true of experiences that occur while individuals’ cultural identities are being formed, typically during childhood, adolescence, or after immigrating to a new country (Phinney, 1990; Poston, 1990). Therefore, the motivation to increase selfesteem by identifying with high-prestige groups justifies the following proposition. Proposition 1a: The number of cultures with which individuals perceive high levels of cultural group prestige during identity formation will be positively related to identity plurality. October Generational status, explained next, has the potential to be an important predictor within the personal history category of antecedents, because childhood experiences can influence perceived group prestige (Cheng & Lee, 2009; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997). Based on the motivation to increase self-esteem by identifying with high-prestige groups, the number of generations a family has lived in a country is likely to influence identity plurality. This can be explained through the process of acquiring another culture, called “acculturation” (Berry, 1980). Research often equates acculturation processes with cultural identity patterns. In fact, several articles restrict their definition of multiculturals to those who draw on Berry’s (1980) integration acculturation process, where individuals maintain both cultures equally (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2012; Tadmor et al., 2009). This approach is problematic for two reasons: (1) it unnecessarily restricts the boundary conditions for classification as a multicultural individual, because multiculturalism does not require equal identification across both or all cultures, and (2) it confounds the process of internalizing a new culture with the patterns of cultures that have already been internalized. Logically, the process of acculturation must occur prior to mentally organizing acquired cultural identities; thus, acculturation must be a precursor to multicultural identity patterns (Brannen & Thomas, 2010). Those who draw on an integrated acculturation process are most likely to have higher identity plurality than those who draw on separated (identifying primarily with the home culture) or assimilated (identifying primarily with the host culture) acculturation processes, because each of the latter processes prioritizes one culture over the other(s). Drawing on acculturation processes, judgments of group prestige shift across generations such that first-generation immigrants generally have more childhood experience with their home cultures (i.e., separated acculturation process), especially if immigrating as adults, whereas second-generation immigrants often have childhood experience with both their home and host cultures (Tsai, Chentsova-Dutton, & Wong, 2002). It follows that first-generation immigrants may have lower identity plurality than second-generation immigrants. It has been documented that it can take three generations before immigrants identify more with the host 2013 Fitzsimmons country than with the home country (Connor, 1974). Therefore, third-generation immigrants or later may be more likely to have experience primarily with the host culture and therefore prioritize the host cultural identity. Based on evidence from generational change in identity patterns, I propose that second-generation immigrants will have higher identity plurality than first- or third-generation immigrants: Proposition 1b: Generational status will have an inverted U-shaped relationship with identity plurality such that first- and third-generation immigrants will have lower identity plurality than second-generation immigrants. In sum, I predict that personal history antecedents will be related to identity plurality, based on the motivation to identify with highprestige groups in order to increase self-esteem. In addition to the influence that personal history has on multicultural identity patterns, current context is also likely to influence identity patterns (Johns, 2007). Current Context Antecedents Large-scale context, such as the city, region, or country of residence, is likely to be a more important predictor of multicultural identity patterns than temporary contexts that change over the course of a day, because multicultural identity patterns are based on the organization of cultural schemas, which remain stable over time (Ashforth et al., 2008; Markus, 1986). Temporary changes in context, such as going home after work, affect the accessibility of particular schemas (Markus, 1977, 1986), but they do not affect the content, meaning, or organization of those schemas (Molinsky, 2007). Thus, I use current context to refer to larger-scale, stable contexts, such as city, country, or region. Context influences the perceived salience and distinctiveness of cultural groups, which, in turn, influences how individuals organize their cultural identities in order to reduce uncertainty. In contrast to the motivational mechanism’s goal of increasing self-esteem, this relationship can be explained by the goal of reducing uncertainty by developing identity patterns that are internally consistent. Also based on social identity theory, I label this the cognitive mechanism (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Consistent patterns, with 531 a single set of guiding norms, values, and assumptions, reduce uncertainty more effectively than inconsistent patterns, with multiple sets of guiding norms, values, and assumptions, because inconsistent patterns have the potential to provide conflicting guidance (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). People are generally drawn to consistent patterns over inconsistent ones, but the context can limit the ease with which individuals integrate their cultural identities (Haslam, 2004). When culture is both salient and distinctive in a particular context, borders between cultural groups are perceived more easily (Friedkin & Simpson, 1985), making it more difficult to integrate identities. For example, culture’s salience and distinctiveness as a way to categorize others may be influenced by the degree of cultural segregation in society, which, in turn, is influenced by a region’s multicultural policies. Cultural segregation is the degree to which people live in different residential areas, work for different organizations, and participate in different leisure activities, based on cultural background (Musterd & Ostendorf, 2009). Regions with assimilationist policies have been found to exhibit a greater degree of cultural segregation (Taylor, 1991), resulting in increased salience of culture as a means of differentiating groups of people and increased likelihood that multicultural individuals will separate their cultures instead of integrating them (Williams & Berry, 1991). The effect of assimilationist policies on segregation is illustrated by Vasta (2007), who argues that the Netherlands’ transition from multicultural to assimilationist policies since the mid 1990s increased social divisions based on an “othering” of non-Dutch persons. In addition, Koreans living in China were found to be less likely to be multicultural than Koreans living in the United States; this difference may be attributed to higher levels of cultural integration in the United States than in China (Lee, Falbo, Doh, & Park, 2001). Also, in countries with strong multiculturalism policies, such as Canada and New Zealand, mainstream identity and ethnic identity tend to be positively related or not related, whereas they are negatively related in France, Germany, and the Netherlands, where policies do not promote multiculturalism to the same extent (Phinney, Berry, Vedder, & Liebkind, 2006). These findings indicate that people experience a region’s multicultural policies by noticing the 532 Academy of Management Review degree to which individuals segregate themselves into cultural groups, leading to the following proposed relationship between current context and multicultural identity patterns. Proposition 2: The degree to which regional multiculturalism policies reduce cultural segregation will predict identity integration among residents. Multicultural identity patterns may change more rapidly during times of drastic contextual change. For example, cultural identity may become unstable after a move to a new country, until a new cultural identity can be developed with respect to the new country context. The cultural identity someone holds in one country may no longer make sense in the new country, and it will likely take a few years to stabilize the new identity by making sense of one’s self in a new country context. In this way, development of cultural identity as an adult resembles a punctuated equilibrium that remains stable unless the context changes drastically (Gersick, 1991; Stroink & Lalonde, 2009). Thus, for individuals who remain residents of their home countries, the content of cultural identities, including their associated norms, values, assumptions, and beliefs, remain generally stable throughout these individuals’ lifetime. This content may also influence how people mentally organize their cultural identities, through the desire to reduce uncertainty. Cultural Content Antecedents Individuals will go to great lengths to maintain self-consistency by placing themselves in consistent groups (Markus, 1977). Integrated identity patterns are more consistent than separated identity patterns, so it is likely that people will be drawn to integrated identity patterns (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). However, some pairs of cultures are liable to lend themselves to integration better than others. Specifically, pairs of cultures may be easier to integrate if the cultures are loose, if cultural distance is small, or if the countries representing the cultures have low levels of cultural friction. All three instances of cultural content draw on the theoretical rationale that the pursuit of cognitive consistency will lead individuals to be naturally drawn to integrated identity patterns, unless the cultures themselves impede integration. October Cultural tightness. In tight cultures there are clear behavioral norms and sanctions for deviations from those norms, such as tighter controls on permissible media content and stricter rule abidance expectations for children (Au, 1999; Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver, 2006). Examples of culturally tight societies include Japan, Greece, and rural India (Bhagat, Baliga, Moustafa, & Krishnan, 2003). In contrast, loose cultures exhibit less clarity about behavioral norms and also tolerate more deviance from norms, such as in Thailand and Lappland in northern Sweden (Bhagat et al., 2003). Tight cultures are more difficult to integrate than loose cultures because the former exhibit limited within-culture variation, and this limited variability is reflected within individuals (Au, 1999; Gelfand et al., 2006). For example, members of tight cultures, such as the priesthood, seldom integrate their personal (I am a man) and occupational (I am a priest) identities. Instead, they prefer to separate their identities without allowing them to mix, perhaps because the culture is inconsistent with many aspects of personal identities (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006). Compared to individuals socialized in loose cultures, those socialized in tight cultures learn to adopt a relatively narrow range of allowable behaviors, feel a heightened sense of scrutiny for their actions, and access normative expectations more easily (Gelfand et al., 2006). All of these mechanisms are likely to impede identity integration. Proposition 3a: Cultural tightness will be negatively related to identity integration. Cultural distance. Cultural distance refers to the magnitude of differences between two cultures (Shenkar, Luo, & Yeheskel, 2008). When cultural distance is small, multicultural individuals may find it easier to integrate their cultures because there are fewer inconsistencies to reconcile (Van de Vijver & Phalet, 2004). That is, although distance alone does not imply that cultures are contradictory, it could impede integration when the norms, values, behaviors, and assumptions associated with each culture are markedly different. For example, when cultural distance is calculated as the absolute difference between country A and country B, on the sum of Schwartz’s seven country-level values, German 2013 533 Fitzsimmons Austrians (total distance ⫽ 1.02) would likely have an easier time integrating their cultures than German Ugandans (total distance ⫽ 6.43; Schwartz, personal communication, as described in Schwartz, 1994). Country-level values were calculated for seventy-seven countries based on the data used to develop his ten individual-level values (Schwartz, 1994). A study of Latvian Americans who immigrated to the United States during childhood showed that by the time they reached high school age, there were more who integrated their cultural identities than there were those who kept them separate. By the time they reached their 50s and 60s, none of the participants continued to separate their cultural identities (Smith, Stewart, & Winter, 2004). The participants themselves attributed this trend to the similarities between their cultures—at the time of immigration, both countries shared a religion, similar family values, and similar emphasis on work and education, and this facilitated identity integration (Smith et al., 2004). Thus, cultural distance is likely to impede identity integration. Proposition 3b: Cultural distance will be negatively related to identity integration. Cultural friction. Shenkar et al. (2008) proposed friction as an alternative metaphor for cultural distance, suggesting that distance is not enough to explain complex interactions between cultures (Salk, 2012). In addition to distance, cultural friction also considers power asymmetries, historically conflicted relationships, and goal incongruity (Shenkar et al., 2008). In the context of identity patterns, cultural friction tends to increase the salience of group differences and group boundaries (Friedkin & Simpson, 1985); thus, cultures with historically conflicted relations, political misgivings, or conflict toward one another are likely more difficult to integrate than cultures with low levels of friction. For example, Palestinian Israelis would likely have a harder time integrating their multicultural identities than Australian New Zealanders, because the relationship between the cultures in the former set exhibits more friction than that of the cultures in the latter set. Thus, even beyond the effect of cultural distance, it follows that cultural friction will also impede identity integration. Proposition 3c: Cultural friction will be negatively related to identity integration. All of the antecedent propositions are illustrated in Figure 2 and summarized in Table 1, along with their associated mechanisms. Overall, current context and cultural content likely influence whether multiculturals will separate or integrate their cultural identities, based on the desire to reduce uncertainty. Personal history is expected to influence identity plurality, based on the motivation to identify with highprestige groups in order to increase self-esteem. OUTCOMES OF CULTURAL IDENTITY PATTERNS AND THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT Each multicultural pattern is a unique representation of the self, based on a unique set of internalized cultural schemas, and thus produces unique personal, social, and task outcomes. This three-part categorization of outcomes mirrors the most common distinction made in the expatriate literature and adjustment literature among personal well-being, interpersonal relationships, and task-related effectiveness (Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005; Black, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 1991). Despite issues in the original theory, including data-driven development and lack of validation (Thomas & Lazarova, 2005), similar three-part distinctions continue to be applied as categorical tools, even beyond purely adjustment outcomes (Thomas & Fitzsimmons, 2008). I apply the three categories here as a useful and common distinction among organizationally relevant outcomes (as contrasted with purely psychologically relevant outcomes) in order to develop implications for organizational practice and research. Consistent with the arguments supporting antecedent propositions, I develop outcome propositions for identity integration and identity plurality dimensions based on the dual desires to reduce uncertainty and increase self-esteem, as drawn from social identity theory. I describe each category of outcomes in turn, starting with personal outcomes. Personal Outcomes As discussed earlier, identity patterns vary in their effectiveness at reducing uncertainty, 534 Academy of Management Review October FIGURE 2 Proposed Antecedents of Multicultural Identity Dimensions P2: Regional policies that reduce cultural segregation P3a: Cultural looseness P3b: Small cultural distance P3c: Low levels of cultural friction Identity plurality P1a: Fewer cultures judged as prestigious P1a: More cultures judged as prestigious P1b: First and third generation P1b: Second generation P2: Regional policies that increase cultural segregation P3a: Cultural tightness P3b: Large cultural distance P3c: High levels of cultural friction Identity integration based on variations in internal consistency, ranging from low to high along both identity dimensions. Specifically, identity patterns with a single, prioritized ingroup (e.g., Canadian Chinese) are more internally consistent than patterns with multiple ingroups (e.g., Canadian, Chinese, and Nepalese), and integrated patterns are more internally consistent than separated patterns. Inconsistent identity patterns fail to reduce uncertainty as effectively as consistent patterns because of their potential to provide conflicting guidance for behavior, resulting in greater psychological toll. Psychological toll refers to the negative feelings that can result from switching among identities, including identity stress, lack of adjustment, work-related stressors, and negative health outcomes, which deplete psychological resources available for other activities (Molinsky, 2007). Although psychological adjustment is not necessarily the opposite of psychological toll, a lack of adjustment contributes to higher psychological toll. Evidence that integrated multiculturals have better psychological adjustment than those with sepa- 2013 535 Fitzsimmons TABLE 1 Propositions and Their Associated Mechanisms Propositions Mechanisms How antecedents influence multicultural identity patterns Personal history P1a: The number of cultures with which individuals perceive high Motivated to increase self-esteem by identifying levels of cultural group prestige during identity formation will be with higher-prestige groups positively related to identity plurality. P1b: Generational status will have an inverted U-shaped relationship with identity plurality such that first- and thirdgeneration immigrants will have lower identity plurality than second-generation immigrants. Current context P2: The degree to which regional multiculturalism policies reduce cultural segregation will predict identity integration among residents. Cultural content P3a: Cultural tightness will be negatively related to identity integration. P3b: Cultural distance will be negatively related to identity integration. P3c: Cultural friction will be negatively related to identity integration Cognitive desire to reduce uncertainty by relying on the context as a guide Cognitive desire to reduce uncertainty by maintaining internal consistency How multicultural identity patterns influence outcomes Personal outcomes P4a: Identity plurality will be positively related to Inconsistent patterns reduce uncertainty less psychological toll. effectively than consistent patterns, resulting P4b: Identity integration will be negatively related to in higher psychological toll psychological toll. Social outcomes P5a: Identity plurality will be related to higher levels of structural social capital. P5b: Identity plurality will be related to higher levels of relational social capital. Task outcomes P6a: Identity plurality will be positively related to action skills. P6b: Identity integration will be negatively related to action skills. P7a: Identity plurality will be positively related to analytical skills. P7b: Identity integration will be negatively related to analytical skills. P8a: Identity plurality will be negatively related to culture-domain decision-making speed. P8b: Identity integration will be positively related to culture-domain decision-making speed. Motivation to increase self-esteem by positively differentiating ingroups from comparison outgroups Inconsistent patterns reduce uncertainty less effectively than consistent patterns, resulting in higher levels of skills but longer times required to process decisions How organizational identification moderates the relationships among identity dimensions and outcomes P9: Within the work domain, the strength of organizational Identities only guide behavior when salient; identification will moderate relationships between multicultural strength of organizational identification identity patterns and outcomes such that the relationships will be increases the likelihood that organizational strongest when organizational identification is weak. identification is relatively more salient than multicultural identities P10: Within the work domain, cultural ideology will moderate Identities only guide behavior when salient; it relationships between multicultural identity patterns and is possible for more than one identity to be outcomes such that the relationships will be strongest in organizasalient simultaneously if the identities are tions that endorse a multiculturalism ideology and weakest in consistent organizations that endorse color blindness. 536 Academy of Management Review rated patterns may indicate that integrated multiculturals also suffer less psychological toll than those with separated patterns (Chen, Benet-Martínez, & Bond, 2008; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Thus, single integrated identity patterns should result in the lowest levels of psychological toll, whereas multiple separated identity patterns should result in the highest. An artifact of early multiculturalism studies is the assumption that all forms of multiculturalism are psychologically difficult (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993). This is sometimes the case but exists to a greater degree for people who have inconsistent patterns and, thus, experience more uncertainty than people with consistent patterns (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). It follows that personal outcomes likely vary along with both identity plurality and identity integration, because both dimensions influence the degree of identity pattern consistency. I examine identity stress in more depth because it remains an important construct within this category, linked to early theorizing about multicultural individuals. Identity stress is stress that results from existential uncertainty, or uncertainty about the answer to the question “Who am I?” (Sackmann & Phillips, 2004; Thoits, 1999). There are two competing hypotheses about the effect of multiculturalism on stress. According to the identity accumulation hypothesis, more identities lead to less stress because each identity gives meaning and helps guide behavior (Thoits, 1983). This hypothesis claims that individuals with multiple identities may be better able to buffer feelings of stress or depression because of a sense of self that is less bound to any one aspect of the self (Linville, 1987; Thoits, 1983, 1986). In contrast, Baumeister et al.’s (1985) argument is that when an individual has multiple identities, the identities may conflict with each other, thus increasing stress as they become less useful for guiding behavior. Their model claims that as the number of identities increases, the potential for identity conflict also increases, resulting in greater stress. Together, these two perspectives seem to result in a set of conflicting hypotheses: when the number of cultural identities increases, the result may be less stress (Linville, 1987; Thoits, 1983) or more stress (Baumeister et al., 1985). These seemingly conflicting hypotheses are actually compatible. Stress is only increased when the number of inconsistent identities in- October creases, resulting in identity patterns that are less effective at reducing uncertainty. This occurs when identity patterns are high in identity plurality and low in identity integration. Organizing multiple separated identities is stressful because it requires individuals to reconcile conflicting aspects of the self, resulting in a greater psychological toll than single integrated patterns. The following proposed relationships are based on the psychological toll of having an inconsistent cultural identity pattern. Proposition 4a: Identity plurality will be positively related to psychological toll. Proposition 4b: Identity integration will be negatively related to psychological toll. Although, logically, managers might prefer employees with low levels of psychological toll because they have more cognitive resources available for other activities, there may be social benefits that compensate for the psychological toll of inconsistent identity patterns, explained next. Social Outcomes Identity plurality predicts social capital outcomes when individuals’ patterns of relationships are influenced by their identity patterns. Social capital refers to the resources embedded within, available through, and derived from an individual’s network of relationships (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Thus, individual employees can access social capital resources through their personal networks of relationships or membership in groups (Bordieu, 1986), and they can draw on these resources to help them transfer knowledge, link unrelated groups, innovate, and learn, especially in multinational organizations or organizations that conduct business across borders (Barner-Rasmussen, Ehrnrooth, Koveshinikov, & Mäkelä, 2010). Social capital results from identity patterns when individuals seek to increase self-esteem by positively differentiating their ingroups from referent outgroups (Ashforth et al., 2008). Specifically, individuals’ sets of referent outgroups depend on identity plurality; as the number of cultural identities increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to differentiate between ingroup and outgroup 2013 537 Fitzsimmons members, suppressing the effect of outgroup bias. In contrast, people with one primary cultural identity find it easier to differentiate between ingroup and outgroup members, facilitating outgroup bias. Social capital is often divided into structural, relational, and cognitive social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). I illustrate the relationships between identity patterns and social capital outcomes with structural and relational examples. Structural social capital. Employees’ networks of relationships, including the composition of their ingroups, friendships, and professional connections, constitute their structural social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). When employees are better connected across multiple groups, they are better able to span boundaries and facilitate positive interactions among groups, even across cultural faultlines (BarnerRasmussen et al., 2010). Individuals with fewer cultures can more easily differentiate between ingroup and outgroup members, facilitating the evaluation of other cultures as having less prestige. Consequently, they may be less likely to include people from other cultures in their social networks. In contrast, individuals with multiple cultures may find it more difficult to differentiate between their own cultures and referent cultural outgroups, resulting in less evaluative distinctions among individuals from diverse cultures. The result may be that individuals with high identity plurality have the widest variety of cultures in their ingroups, even beyond their own cultures. In contrast, multiculturals with low identity plurality likely have more culturally homogeneous ingroups than those with high identity plurality, resulting in lower levels of social capital for low plurality patterns and supporting the following proposition. Proposition 5a: Identity plurality will be related to higher levels of structural social capital. Relational social capital. Assets developed through relationships are collectively known as relational social capital, including trust of others and individual trustworthiness, respect, attachment, and mutual obligations (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). When these assets cross group boundaries, such as cultural, organizational, or departmental boundaries, they facilitate interactions by encouraging cooperation (BarnerRasmussen et al., 2010). Relational social capital usually develops over time, and it can deteriorate when an individual behaves inconsistently according to developed expectations (e.g., lying to a relational partner). Thus, relational social capital likely increases along with identity plurality, because as an identity encompasses a wider array of meanings, there may be fewer bases for intergroup conflict. Indeed, the development of multicultural identities has been proposed as a way to reduce ethnocentrism (Thomas, 1996), and research on outgroup bias has shown that as the number of meanings for a group increases, measured by the number of distinct group names, intergroup hostility falls (Mullen, Calogero, & Leader, 2007). Thus, relational social capital assets likely increase as multicultural identity patterns encompass a wider range of possible meanings, indicated by higher identity plurality and supporting the following proposition. Proposition 5b: Identity plurality will be related to higher levels of relational social capital. The third type of social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), cognitive social capital, is more closely related to task outcomes because of its reliance on the cognitive desire to reduce uncertainty, explained next. Task Outcomes Beyond the psychological toll of mentally organizing inconsistent cultural identities, and the social capital resources that multicultural employees can access, multicultural employees may also draw on their identity patterns to perform work-related tasks, such as solving complex problems, leading multicultural teams, and negotiating across cultures (Fitzsimmons, Miska, & Stahl, 2011). Indeed, two meta-analyses independently found significant relationships between identifying with at least two cultures (versus identifying with one culture) and behavioral competence, including academic achievement and career success (Berry et al., 2006; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2012). Although the empirical evidence indicates a relationship between cultural identities and behavioral competence, theoretical mechanisms to explain this relationship have remained elusive (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2012). 538 Academy of Management Review Here I propose that, based on the degree to which they reduce uncertainty, multicultural identity patterns may lead to task outcomes through the development of intercultural skills. Inconsistent identity patterns do not reduce uncertainty as effectively as consistent patterns, likely resulting in a higher psychological toll for inconsistent patterns but also allowing for more complex cognitive schemas. Complex schemas contain multiple sets of values, assumptions, and norms that can be accessible simultaneously and are sometimes in conflict, facilitating outcomes that depend on cognitive complexity. Thus, task outcomes represent the flip side of personal outcomes, in that inconsistent patterns produce the highest psychological toll but also produce the highest level of intercultural skills. Overall, identity patterns are expected to influence which set of intercultural skills individuals develop, and, in turn, these skills influence individuals’ success at performing intercultural tasks, such as solving complex global problems by drawing on ideas from multiple sources. Below I draw on Yamazaki and Kayes’ (2004) model of task-related skills to illustrate the particular relationships between identity dimensions and action and analytical skills. Action skills. Action skills such as adaptability and flexibility help to predict task achievement across cultures and have been used to help predict expatriate success (Mol, Born, Willemsen, & Van der Molen, 2005; Shaffer, Harrison, Gregersen, Black, & Ferzandi, 2006). There is some evidence that multicultural individuals are more adaptable than monocultural individuals because they have more cultural identities than monoculturals and, thus, a wider variety of cultural schemas to guide behavior (Bell & Harrison, 1996). Following the same logic, multiculturals with the most inconsistent cultural identity patterns should have better action skills than those with consistent patterns because pattern inconsistency results in more selection among behavioral repertoires. Therefore, action skills such as adaptability and flexibility should be highest for multicultural individuals with the most inconsistent identity patterns, related to both identity plurality and identity integration, as follows. Proposition 6a: Identity plurality will be positively related to action skills. October Proposition 6b: Identity integration will be negatively related to action skills. Analytical skills. Beyond the ability to adapt to new contexts, analytical skills such as interpreting culturally different behaviors, negotiating successfully across cultures, and solving global ethical problems are also essential to successfully accomplishing intercultural tasks (Fitzsimmons et al., 2011). Broadly, analytical skills are related to cognitive social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) and refer to skills that require complex thinking, such as cultural metacognition and creativity. Cultural metacognition is knowledge of and control over one’s thinking and learning activities during cross-cultural interactions (Thomas, 2006; Thomas et al., 2008), and it facilitates positive cross-cultural interactions (Brannen et al., 2009; Stephan & Stephan, 1992). For example, Tadmor and Tetlock (2006) found that multicultural individuals who identified strongly with two cultures were more integratively complex than those who identified more strongly with one culture over the other, and they attributed this difference to the increased dissonance of having two equal cultures. Cognitive complexity has also been found to increase with identity separation, because perceptions of cultural conflict sharpen cultural awareness (Benet-Martínez et al., 2006). Both findings are consistent with the argument that inconsistent identity patterns produce more dissonance than consistent patterns and, thus, push individuals to pay more active attention to cultural content, increasing analytical skills as a consequence. Since identity inconsistency varies along both identity dimensions, analytical skills likely increase along with identity plurality and decrease with identity integration, leading to the following two propositions. Proposition 7a: Identity plurality will be positively related to analytical skills. Proposition 7b: Identity integration will be negatively related to analytical skills. In contrast, decision making is expected to be fastest when identity patterns are the most consistent, because it takes longer to process decisions that draw on multiple cultural identities than it does to process decisions drawing on one 2013 539 Fitzsimmons primary cultural identity (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This is supported by findings that response latencies on self-relevant questions are longer when two inconsistent schemas are primed and shorter when two consistent schemas are primed (Tavella, 1997). Indeed, one of the foundational studies of schemas tested response latency as a proxy for the existence of self-schemata (Markus, 1977). Schemas, however, are not accessed continuously but, rather, only when made salient by the context. Thus, this response latency effect is only expected for activities within the culture domain, such as decisions about whether to offer a bribe within the local cultural context, what to counter during a cross-cultural negotiation, or whether to accept a proposal for a new cross-cultural partnership. Although decision-making quality is generally more important than decision-making speed, speed can also be important during situ- ations with tight deadlines or during times of crisis. Culture-domain decision-making speed is the elapsed time between first considering a decision that explicitly relates to culture and coming to a final conclusion, and it is expected to be longest for the most inconsistent identity patterns. Proposition 8a: Identity plurality will be negatively related to culturedomain decision-making speed. Proposition 8b: Identity integration will be positively related to culturedomain decision-making speed. Together, personal, social, and task outcomes illustrate what happens when cultural identity patterns influence the way people think and behave, as depicted in Figure 3. However, multicultural identity never works in isolation from FIGURE 3 Proposed Outcomes of Multicultural Identity Dimensions P4: Lower levels of psychological toll P8: Faster decision making Identity plurality P5: Lower levels of social capital P5: Higher levels of social capital P4: Higher levels of psychological toll P6-7: Higher levels of action and analytical skills Identity integration 540 Academy of Management Review contextual influences (Chao & Moon, 2005; Markus, 1986). In particular, this framework examines the moderating effect of organizational identification and organizational culture, because employees have the potential to develop an organizational identification that competes for salience with cultural identities (Ashforth et al., 2008; Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Depending on both the strength and content of the organizational identification, it may be more influential than multicultural identity when organizational identification is salient, weakening relationships between multicultural identity patterns and their outcomes. I describe the effect of organizational identification first, followed by organizational culture. Moderator: Organizational Identification The framework developed here relies on the salience of cultural identities, where salient identities facilitate access to content stored in associated schemas (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). The mere presence of an identity may not be enough to prompt identity-relevant outcomes, except when that identity becomes salient (Forehand, Deshpandé, & Reed, 2002). For example, in recent studies multiculturals were found to have higher cognitive complexity when talking about cultures but not about landscapes (BenetMartínez et al., 2006) and higher creativity when developing fusion cuisine dishes but not monocultural dishes (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & Lee, 2008); female engineers were found to have more original ideas about designing a new product for women but not for college students in general (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & Lee, 2008). In these examples multicultural identity only influenced outcomes for activities within the cultural domain, when the context primed salience of the multicultural identity, facilitating access to cultural schemas. When multiculturals are physically at work, thinking about work, or talking with colleagues from work (henceforth “within the work domain”), the context is likely to heighten the salience of organizational identification, increasing accessibility of organizational schemas (Ashforth et al., 2008). Organizational identification is the internalization of an organization’s distinctive, central, and enduring attributes, as part of one’s identity (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). Although the framework presented October here generally assumes a work domain, most outcomes could also occur in other domains, such as home or social, while the proposed moderating effects are only expected to occur within the work domain. That is, unless the organizational context simultaneously primes both organizational and multicultural identities (explained by the second moderated relationship, below), individuals within the work domain may find that they can access organizational schemas more easily than multicultural schemas. Factors increasing identity salience include both strength of identification (Yip & Fuligni, 2002) and contextual primes (Forehand et al., 2002). It follows that expected relationships between multicultural identity patterns and outcomes may be moderated by the strength of organizational identification, increasing the likelihood that organizational identification is relatively more salient than multicultural identities within the work domain. Specifically, employees who exhibit strong organizational identification may find that organizational identification is relatively more salient than multicultural identities, resulting in weakened relationships between multicultural identity patterns and personal, social, and task outcomes (Markus, 1977). It is worth noting that the proposed moderating effect of strength of organizational identification may also exist at lower levels of identification—namely, at the subgroup or team levels. Indeed, individuals often identify more strongly with lower-order identities than they do with the organization, implying that lower-order identities have the potential to be more salient than organizational identities (Ashforth et al., 2008). One explanation is that salience can be primed by encountering relevant referent groups (Forehand et al., 2002). Since employees are more likely to encounter employees from other workgroups than employees from other organizations, it follows that lower-order identities may be more frequently primed than organizational identity. However, it has been argued that, within nested identities, salience of lower-order identification primes salience of higher-order organizational identification (Ashforth et al., 2008; Vora & Kostova, 2007). Since organizational-level identification is the broadest nested identification within the work domain, I theorize at the organizational level while recognizing that parallel effects may exist at lower levels of identification. 2013 541 Fitzsimmons Proposition 9: Within the work domain, the strength of organizational identification will moderate relationships between multicultural identity patterns and outcomes such that the relationships will be strongest when organizational identification is weak. Beyond individual differences in organizational identification, variations also exist in the content of organizational cultures. In particular, organizational ideologies are one aspect of organizational culture, representing sets of organizational beliefs about the social world and how it operates (Alvesson, 1987). Two common cultural ideologies indicate competing organizational approaches to cultural diversity (Park & Judd, 2005; Plaut, Garnett, Buffardi, & SanchezBurks, 2011). Color blindness ideology endorses ignoring cultural differences and, instead, emphasizing shared characteristics, while multiculturalism ideology acknowledges and celebrates differences among cultural groups (Plaut et al., 2011). As explained in the previous section, the work context primes salience of organizational identification, regardless of cultural ideology. Differences between these two ideologies become evident by analyzing how they interact with simultaneous salience of multicultural identities. Based on the cognitive mechanism of reducing uncertainty and on evidence from international joint venture managers (Li, Xin, & Pillutla, 2002), individuals resist simultaneously holding salient inconsistent identities. Although the color blindness ideology may be effective at reducing intergroup conflict by promoting superordinate identities (Brewer, 1996; Hogg & Terry, 2000), it may also suppress relationships between multicultural identity patterns and outcomes because it suppresses recognition of within-group variability and is therefore inconsistent with simultaneous salience of multicultural identity. This argument is similar to the argument developed for the cultural tightness antecedent, wherein tight cultures allow for less variability and are therefore difficult to integrate with other identities. It follows that the color blindness ideology could suppress relationships between multicultural identity patterns and outcomes while in the work domain. In contrast to color blindness, the multiculturalism ideology explicitly acknowledges multi- ple cultural groups within the organization (Plaut et al., 2011). This condition is consistent with simultaneous salience of both organizational and multicultural identities, allowing employees to access both sets of schemas within the work domain (Ely & Thomas, 2001). For example, after reviewing sixty-three studies published from 1997 to 2002, Jackson, Joshi, and Erhardt (2003) concluded that organizations are more likely to benefit from multiple cultures when the organizational culture values breadth of experience, skills, and attributes, indicating that the multicultural ideology may allow for salience of both cultural and organizational identities. As such, the strength of organizational identification and the cultural ideology endorsed by the organization’s culture are both likely to influence the degree to which organizational identification is relatively more salient than multicultural identities within the work domain. Proposition 10: Within the work domain, cultural ideology will moderate relationships between multicultural identity patterns and outcomes such that the relationships will be strongest in organizations that endorse a multiculturalism ideology and weakest in organizations that endorse color blindness. In sum, multicultural identity patterns influence three categories of outcomes based on two mechanisms drawn from social identity theory: personal and task outcomes are influenced by the degree to which patterns are internally consistent and, thus, the degree to which they effectively reduce uncertainty; social outcomes are influenced by the degree to which patterns increase self-esteem by positively differentiating ingroups from comparison outgroups. Specifically, psychological toll is expected to increase along with identity plurality (Proposition 4a) and decrease along with identity integration (Proposition 4b), because low-plurality, highintegration patterns are more internally consistent than high-plurality, low-integration patterns. Structural (Proposition 5a) and relational (Proposition 5b) social capital are expected to increase along with identity plurality, because fewer cultural identities provide a stronger basis for positive differentiation between ingroup and outgroup members. Task outcomes are ex- 542 Academy of Management Review pected to be mediated by intercultural skills such that action and analytical skills are expected to increase along with identity plurality (Propositions 6a and 7a) and decrease along with identity integration (Propositions 6b and 7b), while the inverse is expected for culturedomain decision-making speed (Propositions 8a and 8b). The logic of the task outcome relationships is that internally inconsistent patterns access more cultural schemas than internally consistent patterns, promoting complex thinking and broad cultural knowledge, while consistent patterns promote decisiveness. Two constructs are expected to moderate the relationships between multicultural identity patterns and outcomes. When employees are within the work domain, both positive and negative outcomes may be suppressed by strong organizational identification or color blindness cultural ideology, because the context promotes relative salience of the organizational identification over multicultural identities, facilitating easier access to organizational schemas than cultural schemas. Organizational ideologies that are inconsistent with simultaneous sa- October lience of multicultural and organizational identities are expected to suppress cultural identity salience and access to cultural schemas. Thus, the strength of organizational identification and the strength of cultural ideology are both expected to moderate relationships among multicultural identity patterns and their associated outcomes (Propositions 9 and 10). When considered collectively, the two identity dimensions, antecedents, and outcomes create a framework that may be used to improve the effectiveness with which organizations draw on their multicultural employees, based on implications for theory, managers, and organizations, as explained in the following sections. The complete framework is depicted in Figure 4 and summarized in Table 1. DISCUSSION The framework and mechanisms developed in this article can contribute to future research in the field of multicultural employees and can inform managerial and organizational decisions about this unique workplace demographic. FIGURE 4 Overall Framework of Multicultural Identity Dimensions, Including Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators Antecedents Personal history Current context Cultural content Identity integration Cognitive and motivational mechanisms Outcomes Personal Identity plurality Social Skills Organizational identification Organizational culture Task 2013 Fitzsimmons Theoretical Contributions This article’s primary contribution is a theoretical basis for studying multiculturalism at the individual level, as a logical extension of multiculturalism research conducted at the societal (Jonsen et al., 2011), organizational (Joshi, 2006), and team (Stahl, Mäkelä, Zander, & Maznevski, 2010; Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010) levels. The framework bridges early research on mitigating potential negative outcomes of multicultural identity with current research on positive outcomes, and it facilitates theorizing about how this new employee demographic influences the range of work-related outcomes by clarifying theoretical mechanisms of influence. For example, the theoretical rationale for linking identity plurality with psychological toll is that stress is only increased when the number of inconsistent identities increases, resulting in identity patterns that are less effective at reducing uncertainty. This argument reconciles previous conflicting theories about the relationship between the number of identities and stress, and it illustrates how new insights might be developed by applying the dual mechanisms of reducing uncertainty and increasing selfesteem to other instances of multiple identities, even beyond multicultural identities. By grounding research on multiple identities in a shared theoretical foundation based on social identity theory, this framework could be extended to examine more complex interactions among multiple identities, exploring the wider cultural mosaic (Chao & Moon, 2005). In particular, this framework illustrates the utility of identity salience for understanding cross-domain identity dynamics, such as combining cultural and organizational identifications. Researchers drawing on social identity theory and self-categorization theory often assume that identities are always salient or that a relevant context will necessarily prime its associated identity (e.g., When I’m teaching, my professor identity is salient; Ashforth et al., 2008; Forehand et al., 2002). However, this assumption may be overly simplistic. Instead, identities may be primed through the intersection of an identity-relevant context with an identity that is central to the individual. By considering the role of identity salience, it becomes easier to model complex interactions across multiple identities. For example, the moderators presented in this 543 framework allow for variations in the degree to which the same situation primes identities across individuals, depending on the degree to which that identity is central for each individual. As identified at the beginning of this article, it is common for researchers to examine multicultural employees using only psychological processes. However, Reicher (2004) has argued that this reductionist approach is problematic, ignoring the role played by organizational context. There is growing interest in moving beyond the reductionist approach, toward examining employees’ whole selves, including multiple identities across multiple domains (Chao & Moon, 2005; Pratt & Foreman, 2000; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, & Eidelson, 2008). Identity salience may be a key mechanism to help explain these complex identity interactions. Just as the framework presented here answers some questions, it also highlights important questions that have not yet been addressed. First, multicultural individuals who have the most difficult experience (highest psychological toll) also have the highest level of task outcomes (higher action and analytical skills). I theorize that identity pattern inconsistency leads to both outcomes, but it is possible that identity pattern inconsistency leads to psychological toll and that psychological toll, in turn, leads to increased task outcomes. The latter explanation would be consistent with recent theorizing about the process through which multiculturalism increases integrative complexity (Tadmor, Galinsky, & Maddux, 2012; Tadmor et al., 2009), wherein multiculturals who experience higher levels of cognitive dissonance must expend more effort coping with the dissonance and therefore develop more complex responses than those who experience less dissonance. If psychological toll is found to mediate relationships between identity patterns and task outcomes, this implies that there may be an optimal level of psychological toll, rather than that dissonance or psychological toll ought to be minimized. An important next step in this direction would be an experiment-based study to help determine whether personal outcomes mediate task outcomes. The second unanswered question also refers to the time element of multiculturalism. There is a need for empirical evidence about the stability versus malleability of cultural identity patterns over time and across contexts. Research that 544 Academy of Management Review defines multiculturalism in terms of cultural schemas usually assumes that patterns are reasonably stable over time, or at least that they change slowly, because schemas are assumed to be reasonably stable over time (Markus, 1986). In contrast, studies that define multiculturalism in terms of identity may allow for more frequent changes over time, depending on the form of identification (Roccas et al., 2008). This is an empirical question, and the field would benefit from a longitudinal study of multicultural pattern change over time. Finally, multicultural identity patterns themselves may influence how individuals reconcile inconsistencies between their cultural and organizational identities.1 Indeed, research on identity conflict suggests that there are many different ways to resolve conflicts stemming from multiple identities, including decoupling; cognitively separating, either sequentially or spatially; prioritizing based on importance; compromising; or simply living with dissonance (Ashforth et al., 2008; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Kreiner et al., 2006; Pratt & Foreman, 2000; Vora & Kostova, 2007). Again, the salience mechanism may help to explain why different individuals come to disparate solutions for reconciling identity conflict. For example, a multicultural employee who works at an organization that is explicitly multicultural might find that both organizational and cultural identities are primed by the same context, facilitating simultaneous access to both schemas. Future researchers attempting to operationalize the moderating effect of organizational culture would be advised to attend to potential multilevel issues. Two general approaches are possible: (1) researchers could measure organizational culture at the individual level, as a perceptual construct, or (2) they could specify an aggregated organizational-level measure using an additive composition model (Chan, 1998). Although the former approach has been used in previous research to avoid specifying crosslevel effects (Reichers & Schneider, 1990), findings based on this within-individual perceptual approach are less easily applied to organizations. For the latter approach, an additive composition model is the most appropriate way to 1 I thank the anonymous reviewer who offered this suggestion. October operationalize the ideological content of organizational culture because it represents the organization’s central defining feature, as opposed to its variability, strength, or degree of consensus among employees about the organization’s cultural ideology. Managerial Implications Managers can use the framework to help guide placement decisions as workplace demographics shift toward more employees with multiple cultures. Managers can make more systematic decisions about which roles suit particular multicultural employees by watching employees for examples of the outcomes presented here. For example, multicultural employees who prioritize one of their cultural identities may have generally lower levels of adaptability. This characteristic may be suitable when the organization prefers expatriates to follow home country norms, as is common for expatriates in countries where bribery is endemic. Multicultural expatriates who prioritize the home culture may resist temptations to bribe, while still being able to relate to colleagues from another culture because of their multicultural identity. A second example is that multicultural employees who have high levels of cultural plurality may have higher levels of social capital because of their tendency to befriend people from many different cultures, even from outside their own cultural groups. This may explain why Carlos Ghosn— the Brazilian Lebanese–French CEO of Nissan and Renault—shines as a merger and acquisition (M&A) facilitator for Nissan and Renault, even though he is not an expert in either organization’s culture. However, caution is advised when using multicultural status to influence placement decisions, since monocultural employees may also have capabilities similar to their multicultural colleagues’. Just as cross-cultural training should not be used to restrict individuals’ opportunities based on group averages, this framework should not be used to restrict multiculturals’ opportunities to only intercultural contexts. Thus, it would be inappropriate to select individuals based on this framework. Instead, I recommend placing multicultural employees strategically once managers know more about particular employees’ skills and challenges. 2013 545 Fitzsimmons Organizational Implications The framework can also be used as partial justification for organizations to use caution when encouraging employees to identify strongly with the organization. It is usually assumed that organizations should encourage employees to become highly identified with their organizations, influencing known benefits such as increased effort, intrinsic motivation, organizational citizenship behaviors, and self-sacrifice for the sake of the organization (Ashforth et al., 2008). However, employees who identify strongly with their organizations may be less likely to draw on their multicultural identities than those who identify weakly with their organizations. This may be problematic for organizations attempting to benefit from their multicultural employees, because employees’ unique skills, abilities, and challenges may be unavailable to their organizations if employees overly identify with them. This “dark side” implication is consistent with findings that organizational identification is related to reduced levels of creativity (Rotondi, 1975) and suppressed dissent (Dukerich, Kramer, & McLean Parks, 1998). Instead, organizations that combine strong organizational identification with a multicultural ideology might be better positioned to draw on their multicultural employees’ skills and abilities as a valuable resource. It is generally helpful for employees to share an organizational identification and guiding set of values (Barney, 1986). However, this shared set of values may come at the expense of a diversity of values stemming from multicultural employees. Given that multinational organizations often fail to take advantage of the knowledge, skills, and experiences of their global employees, organizations with processes that allow multicultural employees to identify strongly with their organizations while simultaneously accessing their cultural schemas may have an opportunity to get ahead of their competitors. A recent study of 3,578 employees indicated that the mere presence of diversity programs and initiatives was not enough to develop an organizational culture supportive of multiculturalism (Herdman & McMillan-Capehart, 2010). Instead, it required the combination of diversity programs and initiatives, along with managers’ endorsement of relational values and multicultural representation in management. As a result, in order to benefit from the skills of their multicultural employees, organizations should take a holistic approach to developing a multicultural ideology. CONCLUSION Global migration indicates that multicultural employees are already a significant workplace demographic. The framework presented in this article offers a theoretical basis for understanding how multicultural employees may contribute to their organizations, spurring future discussions on the business implications of an increasingly important workplace demographic. During a keynote speech on multiculturalism, Wayson Choy, a Chinese Canadian novelist, described being multicultural as being like a composite material (Choy, 2010). Composite materials are used in manufacturing because they are particularly well-suited to their tasks—lighter, stronger, cheaper, or more flexible—but require more work up front in order to develop them. In the same way, multicultural employees have unique skills that are particularly well-suited to the global workplace, but organizations may need to put the right conditions in place first, before they can reap the benefits of their multicultural workforce. In this article I propose a framework that managers and researchers can use to think systematically about the range of contributions and challenges multicultural employees bring to their organizations. Organizations with managers who are aware of the range of possible outcomes their multicultural employees represent may set themselves up to benefit from the unique skills of their “composite materials”—their multicultural employees. REFERENCES Alvesson, M. 1987. Organizations, culture, and ideology. International Studies of Management & Organization, 17(3): 4 –19. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325–374. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20 – 39. Au, K. Y. 1999. Intra-cultural variation: Evidence and implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 30: 799 – 812. Barner-Rasmussen, W., Ehrnrooth, M., Koveshinikov, A., & Mäkelä, K. 2010. Linchpins of the multinational: Func- 546 Academy of Management Review tions, resources and types of boundary spanners in multinational corporations. Paper presented at the Academy of International Business conference, Rio de Janeiro. Barney, J. B. 1986. Organizational culture—Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11: 656 – 665. Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., De Jong, M., & Joustra, I. 2007. Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 173–190. October Brannen, M. Y., & Thomas, D. C. 2010. Bicultural individuals in organizations: Implications and opportunity. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10: 5–16. Brewer, M. 1996. When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20: 291–303. Brumbaugh, A. M. 2002. Source and nonsource cues in advertising and their effects on the activation of cultural and subcultural knowledge on the route to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 29: 258 –269. Baumeister, R. F., Shapiro, J. P., & Tice, D. M. 1985. Two kinds of identity crisis. Journal of Personality, 53: 407– 424. Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of compositional models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234 –246. Bell, E. L. 1990. The bicultural life experience of careeroriented black women. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11: 459 – 477. Chao, G. T., & Moon, H. 2005. The cultural mosaic: A metatheory for understanding the complexity of culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1128 –1140. Bell, M. P., & Harrison, D. A. 1996. Using intra-national diversity for international assignments: A model of bicultural competence and expatriate adjustment. Human Resource Management Review, 6: 47–74. Chen, S. X., Benet-Martínez, V., & Harris-Bond, M. H. 2008. Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies: Immigration-based and globalization-based acculturation. Journal of Personality, 76: 803– 837. Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. 2005. Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73: 1015–1049. Benet-Martínez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. 2006. Biculturalism and cognitive complexity: Expertise in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37: 386 – 407. Berry, J. W. 1980. Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings: 9 –25. Boulder, CO: Westview. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. 2006. Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55: 303–332. Bhagat, R. S., Baliga, B. R., Moustafa, K. S., & Krishnan, B. 2003. Knowledge in cross-cultural management in the era of globalization: Where do we go from here? In D. Tjosvold & K. Leung (Eds.), Cross-cultural foundations: Traditions for managing in a global world: 155–177. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. M. 2005. Input-based and time-based models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 257–281. Cheng, C. Y., & Lee, F. 2009. Multiracial identity integration: Perceptions of conflict and distance among multiracial individuals. Journal of Social Issues, 65: 51– 68. Cheng, C. Y., Lee, F., & Benet-Martínez, V. 2006. Assimilation and contrast effects in cultural frame switching: Bicultural identity integration and valence of cultural cues. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37: 742–760. Cheng, C. Y., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. 2008. Connecting the dots within: Creative performance and identity integration. Psychological Science, 19: 1178 –1184. Cheng, C. Y., Sanders, M., Sanchez-Burks, J., Molina, K., Lee, F., Darling, E., & Zhao, Y. 2008. Reaping the rewards of diversity: The role of identity integration. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2: 1182–1198. Choy, W. 2010. Multiculturalism—Are we there yet? Speech presented at UBC-Laurier Institution Multiculturalism Lecture Series, Vancouver, Canada. Connor, J. W. 1974. Acculturation and family continuities in three generations of Japanese Americans. Journal of Marriage and Family, 36: 159 –165. DiversityInc. 2009. The DiversityInc top 50 companies for diversity.; accessed October 2010. Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. 1991. Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16: 291–317. Dukerich, J. M., Kramer, R., & McLean Parks, J. 1998. The dark side of organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations: 245–256. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bordieu, P. 1986. The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook for theory and research for the sociology of education: 241–258. New York: Greenwood Press. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239 –263. Brannen, M. Y., Garcia, D., & Thomas, D. C. 2009. Biculturals as natural bridges for intercultural communication and collaboration. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Intercultural Collaboration, Palo Alto, CA. Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. 1994. On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 382–394. 2013 Fitzsimmons 547 Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 229 –273. Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. 2006. Cross-cultural competence in international business: Toward a definition and a model. Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 525–543. Erikson, E. 1956. The problem of ego identity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 4: 56 –121. Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M. L., & Schneider, S. C. 2011. Diversity and its not so diverse literature: An international perspective. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 11: 35– 62. Erikson, E. 1963. Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. Fitzsimmons, S. R., Miska, C., & Stahl, G. K. 2011. Multicultural employees: Global business’ untapped resource. Organizational Dynamics, 40(3): 199 –206. Forehand, M. R., Deshpandé, R., & Reed, A., II. 2002. Identity salience and the influence of differential activation of the social self-schema on advertising response. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 1086 –1199. Friedkin, N., & Simpson, M. 1985. Effects of competition on members’ identification with their subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 377–394. Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. 2007. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 479 –514. Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. 2006. On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1225–1244. Gersick, C. J. G. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16: 10 –36. Giridharadas, A. 2010. New leaders find strength in diversity. New York Times, May 6: 2010/05/07/us/07iht-currents.html. Hannerz, U. 1990. Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity: 237–252. London: Sage. Haslam, S. A. 2004. Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herdman, A. O., & McMillan-Capehart, A. 2010. Establishing a diversity program is not enough: Exploring the determinants of diversity climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25: 39 –53. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. 2000. Social identity and selfcategorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25: 121–140. Hong, H. J. 2010. Bicultural competence and its impact on team effectiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10: 93–120. Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-Martínez, V. 2000. Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55: 709 –720. Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. 2003. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29: 801– 830. Johns, G. 2007. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31: 386 – 408. Joshi, A. 2006. The influence of organizational demography on the external networking behavior of teams. Academy of Management Review, 31: 583–595. Kirkman, B., & Law, K. 2005. From the editors: International management research in AMJ: Our past, present, and future. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 377–386. Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. 2006. Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1031–1059. LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L., & Gerton, J. 1993. Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114: 395– 412. Lee, R. M., Falbo, T., Doh, H. S., & Park, S. Y. 2001. The Korean diasporic experience: Measuring ethnic identity in the United States and China. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7: 207–216. Lee, Y.-T. 2010. Home versus host—Identifying with either, both or neither? The relati...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer


Weeks X–X/Week
Title/Presenter Name

Multicultural Management
Incorporation and Analysis of Resources

•Organizations are having rise in
multicultural individuals – 2 or more
cultures (Fitzsimmons, 2013)
•Also, organizations are
multigenerational – baby boomers,
generation y, generation x – new work
place dynamics (Johnson, 2015)
•As such, need of organizational
cultural synergy emerges (Levitt, 2014)

Multicultural Management
Incorporation and Analysis of Resources

•Additionally, need to respond quickly
to consumer needs leads to delocation of teams – new
communication channels; virtual
teams (Morgan, et al., 2014)
•Bencie (2015), suggest more
listening, flexibility, preparation and
•Research topic: How does leader
keep multicultural team motivated?

Multicultural Management
Principal Schools of Thought – Motivating Diversity

•Jiang (2010) – use of rewards,
punishments, psychology
•Open-minded – avoid ethnocentrism
and xenocentrism (Brett & Kristen,
•Build cultural intelligence – build
potential to work optimally across
different cultures (Korzilius, et al.,

Multicultural Management
Principal Schools of Thought

•People-oriented leadership – build
relationships with and among
subordinates (Zander, 2012)
•Linguistic diversity – be open to
different languages; not just different
cultures. Encourages social
integration and promotes creativity
and performance (Lauring, 2017)

Multicultural Management
Evaluation of Main Concepts - Application

•Use of rewards – employee of the
month – makes employees feel
appreciated, noticed. Recognize
others too who meet targets
•Promoting middle ground leads to
open-mindedness, employee...

Just what I was looking for! Super helpful.


Related Tags