The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
25,5
The multicultural workplace:
interactive acculturation and
intergroup relations
460
Wido G.M. Oerlemans and Maria C.W. Peeters
Received June 2008
Revised December 2008,
July 2009
Accepted September 2009
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose – The paper’s aim is to introduce the interactive acculturation model (IAM) of Bourhis et al.
to predict how disconcordance in acculturation orientations between host community and immigrant
workers relates to the quality of intergroup work-relations.
Design/methodology/approach – The sample consisted of 141 host community (Dutch) and
41 non-western immigrant workers of a postal service company who filled out a questionnaire.
Methods of analyses include analysis of variance and multiple regression.
Findings – In line with the IAM, results showed that a higher disconcordance in preferred
acculturation orientations between host community and immigrant workers related to a poorer quality
of intergroup work-relations. However, intergroup contact moderated this relationship differently for
host community and immigrant workers.
Research limitations/implications – Data are cross-sectional and collected in one organization.
Future studies should replicate the findings to other organizational contexts, cultural groups, and
collect longitudinal data to determine causal effects.
Practical implications – Organizations should monitor disconcordance in acculturation
orientations amongst host community and immigrant workers. A multicultural culture in
organizations may reduce disconcordance in acculturation orientations between host community
and immigrant workers.
Originality/value – The paper helps to explain the mixed findings in cultural diversity research so
far, by demonstrating that disconcordance in acculturation orientations relates negatively to
intergroup work-relations in a multicultural workplace.
Keywords Acculturation, Intergroup relations, Migrant workers, National cultures, The Netherlands
Paper type Research paper
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 25 No. 5, 2010
pp. 460-478
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683941011048373
1. Introduction
Nowadays, many workplaces are transformed into domains where culturally diverse
groups of employees interact on a daily basis. It therefore becomes more and more
important to understand how cultural diversity in organizations relates to important
work-outcomes. Literature reviews on cultural diversity showed mixed results (Oerlemans
et al., 2008). For example, some studies indicated that cultural diversity in work-groups
leads to benefits (e.g. enhanced creativity, innovation, and decision making; McLeod and
Lobel, 1992; Watson et al., 2002), whereas other studies showed that cultural diversity
leads to negative work-outcomes (e.g. increased relational conflicts, a poorer quality of
work-relations; Ely and Thomas, 2001; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998).
One way to get more insight in the mixed effects of cultural diversity on work-outcomes
is to study “deep-level” forms of cultural diversity in addition to examining “surface-level”
forms of cultural diversity (Harrison et al., 1998; Wheeler, 2002). Surface level forms of
cultural diversity encompass variations in ethnicity or nationality (Jackson et al., 1995,
2003; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998), whereas deep-level forms of cultural diversity
encompass (differences in) cultural attitudes, norms, and values (Jackson et al., 2003). Most
research so far focused on examining surface-level forms of cultural diversity (Oerlemans,
2009). The main aim of this study is therefore to examine whether one aspect of deep-level
cultural diversity, acculturation orientations, can explain why cultural diversity
sometimes relates positively, and sometimes negatively to intergroup work-relations in
multicultural workplaces.
1.1. Theoretical background
Acculturation. When people from different cultures come into first-hand contact with
one another, this will trigger a process called acculturation. The first definition of
acculturation was offered by Redfield et al. (1936, p. 149):
Acculturation comprehends those phenomena, which result when groups of individuals
having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes
in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups.
Nowadays, the most popular theoretical model to study acculturation has been
introduced by Berry (1997). Here, acculturation is based on two dimensions. The first
dimension refers to culture adaptation; the degree to which immigrants are willing to
adapt to the dominant culture of the “new” society. The second dimension refers to
culture maintenance; the degree to which immigrants want to maintain their own ethnic
culture in the new society. Based on these two dimensions, Berry distinguishes between
four possible acculturation orientations. Integration is defined by a positive orientation
towards culture adaptation and culture maintenance, whereas marginalization is
defined by negative orientation towards the two domains. A positive orientation
towards culture adaptation and a negative orientation towards culture maintenance is
referred to as assimilation, whereas the reverse defines separation.
Interactive acculturation and intergroup-relations. Much historic work on
acculturation focused solely on immigrant groups and their orientation towards the
dominant culture of a host society (Berry et al., 1987; Berry, 2006). However, Bourhis
et al. (1997, 2009) argued that acculturation is more likely an interactive process
between immigrant groups and the host community group in a society. For instance,
people from the host community group are also likely to hold acculturation orientations
towards immigrant groups in their society. Such orientations concern the degree to
which immigrant groups should be allowed to maintain aspects of their heritage
culture, and/or adapt to the dominant culture of the host society. Based on this premise,
Bourhis et al. proposed a more dynamic interactive acculturation model (IAM) where
they sought to integrate the following components:
.
acculturation orientations adopted by immigrant groups in the host community;
.
acculturation orientations adopted by the host community group towards
specific groups of immigrants; and
.
interpersonal and intergroup relational outcomes that are the product of
combinations of immigrant and host community acculturation orientations.
According to the IAM, consensual relational outcomes are predicted when
acculturation orientations between the host community group and the immigrant
The
multicultural
workplace
461
JMP
25,5
462
group are “concordant.” This is the case when both groups prefer assimilation, or when
both groups prefer integration. Next, problematic relational outcomes emerge when
acculturation orientations of the two groups are partially in conflict (i.e. Bourhis et al.
refer to this as partial disconcordance). For example, this would be the case when one
group prefers integration, whereas the other group prefers assimilation. As such, the two
groups would share similar acculturation orientations on one dimension (e.g. culture
adaptation) but not on the other dimension (e.g. culture maintenance). Finally, conflictual
relational outcomes are predicted when the host community group and the immigrant
group are in full disagreement as regards to their acculturation orientations (Bourhis
et al. refer to this as full disconcordance). For example, one group prefers assimilation,
whereas the other group prefers marginalization. As such, the two groups would share
disagreement on both dimensions of culture adaptation and culture maintenance.
Bourhis et al. (1997) proposed that the quality of intergroup relations on a
social-psychological level includes verbal and non-verbal cross-cultural communications;
interethnic attitudes and stereotypes, intergroup tension, acculturative stress, and
discrimination. Furthermore, consensual, problematic, and conflictual relations should
not be interpreted as three distinct clusters of relational outcomes, but rather as a
single continuum ranging from consensual to conflictual relations.
In line with the IAM, a study of Jasinskaja-Lahti et al. (2003) demonstrated that
immigrants who differed in their acculturation orientations from the host population
experienced either more discrimination or more stress than immigrants with more
concordant acculturation orientations. Similarly, Zagefka and Brown (2002) showed in
their study that a mismatch in preferred acculturation orientations between hosts and
immigrants increased the perception of in-group bias and discrimination while
decreasing the quality of intergroup relations for both groups.
The role of intergroup contact and group vitality. The definition of acculturation
states that sustained first hand contact is required for consequences of acculturation to
occur (Redfield et al., 1936). An extensive review of Pettigrew and Tropp (2006)
demonstrated that intergroup contact reduced feelings of prejudice and led to more
consensual intergroup relations. Hence, intergroup contact is likely to positively
moderate the negative relationship between disconcordance in acculturation
orientations and intergroup work-relations.
In addition, the host community group usually enjoys what Bourhis et al. (1997, 2009)
referred to as a “strong vitality position,” whereas immigrant groups often have a “weak
vitality position.” Group vitality is defined as that what makes the group likely to act as a
collective entity within a particular context (Giles et al., 1977). Several factors such as
demographics (i.e. the number of people belonging to the same ethnic group),
institutional control (i.e. whether groups gain representation in decision making levels)
and status (i.e. sociohistorical status and prestige) contribute to the relative strength and
vitality of ethnic groups. As a consequence, immigrant groups often experience pressure
to adapt to the cultural values of the host community group. As a result, immigrant
groups may be more prone to experiencing poorer intergroup relations as a consequence
of disconcordance in acculturation orientations compared to the host community group.
1.2. The present study
Interactive acculturation in the workplace. In this study, we applied the IAM of Bourhis
et al. (1997) to the workplace to examine if disconcordance in acculturation orientations
impact the quality of intergroup work-relations. We specifically focussed on
acculturation orientations of host community (Dutch) workers versus immigrant
workers from “non-western cultures.” Cultural values between Dutch workers and
non-western immigrant workers are likely to be higher compared to immigrants who
originated from western cultures (Hofstede, 1984).
Furthermore, we examined “blue collar workers” for two reasons. Non-western
immigrant groups are overrepresented in blue-collar jobs in The Netherlands (CBS,
2007), but at the same time this group is underrepresented in organizational research
(Peeters and Oerlemans, 2009). Second, selection procedures at higher levels in
organizations often suffer from “cultural bias” (van de Vijver and Tanzer, 2003). Cultural
bias stimulates the recruitment of personnel that is culturally similar to the dominant
(host community) group. As such, this would reduce the probability of finding
differences in acculturation orientations between the two cultural groups.
Hypotheses. Non-western immigrant groups in The Netherlands usually prefer
integration above assimilation, whereas segregation and marginalization are the least
preferred acculturation orientations. The Dutch usually prefer immigrants to assimilate
towards the Dutch culture, followed by integration, while segregation and
marginalization are least preferred (Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver, 2003, 2004;
Ouarasse and van de Vijver, 2005). Therefore, we first hypothesized that:
H1. Assimilation is the preferred acculturation orientation of Dutch workers,
followed by integration, while separation and marginalization are the least
preferred acculturation orientations.
H2. Integration is the preferred acculturation orientation of non-western immigrant
workers, followed by assimilation, while separation and marginalization are
the least preferred acculturation orientations.
In this study, we conceptualized disconcordance in acculturation orientations in two
ways. First, we examined disconcordance on a location level by examining variations in
acculturation orientations between the group of non-western immigrant workers and
the group of Dutch workers across four locations of one organization. Second, we
examined disconcordance on a relational level by comparing acculturation orientations
of individual workers to their out-group (i.e. host community or immigrant group) at the
same locations. Based on the IAM model of Bourhis et al. (1997), we hypothesized that:
H3. Disconcordance in preferred acculturation orientations between the host
community group and the non-western immigrant group results in a poorer
quality of intergroup work-relations on a location level.
H4. The higher the degree of disconcordance in preferred acculturation
orientations between individual workers compared to their out-group
(i.e. host community or immigrant group) at the same location, the poorer
the intergroup work-relations as perceived by individual workers.
Furthermore, we examined whether intergroup contact would moderate the
relationship between disconcordance in preferred acculturation orientations and
intergroup work-relations. The organizational context usually provides important
conditions, e.g. striving towards common goals, intergroup cooperation – for optimal
outcomes of intergroup contact to occur (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006).
The
multicultural
workplace
463
JMP
25,5
464
As a consequence, disconcordance in acculturation orientations may relate less strongly
to poorer intergroup work-relations under conditions of high intergroup contact
between host community and immigrant workers. Therefore, we hypothesized that:
H5. The negative relationship between disconcordance in acculturation
orientations and intergroup work-relations is positively moderated by the
frequency of intergroup contact.
Finally, host-community workers in this sample had a stronger vitality position
compared to immigrant workers. For instance, host community workers had a higher
organizational tenure, were in the numerical majority, and were overrepresented in
higher functional levels compared to immigrant workers. Based on this discrepancy
in vitality positions, we expected that immigrant workers would be more prone to
experiencing poorer intergroup work-relations as a consequence of disconcordance in
acculturation orientations compared to host community workers. To our knowledge,
there are no studies that tested such a hypothesis before. Therefore, we formulated the
explorative question that:
Explorative question 1. Do immigrant workers experience poorer intergroup
work-relations compared to host community workers as
a consequence of disconcordance in acculturation
orientations?
2. Method
Sample and procedure
The data were collected in a postal service company in The Netherlands. The company
had no specific information about the cultural diversity of their workforce. Based on
information provided by location managers about the degree of cultural diversity
within their locations, we selected four locations that were to some degree
multicultural. Participants filled out a paper and pencil questionnaire during a break
from work. Questionnaires were not translated into other languages based on the fact
that translation itself can also diffuse interpretations (van Oudenhoven, 2002).
Research assistants were present at each location, and emphasized that answers would
be treated confidentially by university researchers. The research assistants visited the
four locations during multiple days, allowing participants to take their time and fill out
the questionnaire.
The response rate within each location was 50 percent (n ¼ 25), 58 percent (n ¼ 29),
27 percent (n ¼ 54), and 38 percent (n ¼ 82). The sample consisted out of 49 non-western
immigrant workers and 141 Dutch workers. The Central Bureau of Statistics (2007) in
The Netherlands identifies persons as non-western immigrants when a person
originated from countries in Africa, South America, Asia, or Turkey. About 43 percent of
the non-western workers had a Surinamese, 23 percent an Indonesian, 16 percent a
Turkish, and 14 percent a Moroccan background. Furthermore, 78 percent were “first
generation,” and 22 percent were “second generation” immigrants. First generation
immigrants are born in the respective countries of origin, whereas second generation
immigrants are born in The Netherlands, but one or both parents were born
in non-western countries.
The sample mainly consisted out of “blue-collar” workers. Their jobs encompassed
tasks such as sorting mail, labelling mail, offloading, and reloading trucks.
About 72 percent of the workers had a lower secondary or a lower vocational degree,
and 59 percent of the sample was male. The average age was 45 years, ranging from
18 to 61 years. Participants had a mean organizational tenure of 19 years, ranging
from 1 to 40 years. The immigrant group and the Dutch group of workers had similar
educational levels and gender distributions. However, immigrant workers were
significantly older (m ¼ 46.2) compared to Dutch workers (m ¼ 40.2; F(189, 1) ¼ 12.658;
p , 0.001). Also, Dutch workers had a significantly higher organizational tenure
(m ¼ 20.1) compared to immigrant workers (m ¼ 12.2; F(189, 1) ¼ 18.530; p , 0.001).
Measures
Acculturation orientations were measured with the acculturation scale developed by
Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2000). This scale follows a so-called “two-statement
measurement method,” where two items are formulated per domain. One refers to
adopting the mainstream culture and the other to maintaining the heritage culture. One
item example for culture maintenance is: “Immigrants must try to honour the customs
and traditions of their own culture.” One item-example of culture adaptation is:
“Immigrants should raise their children according to the Dutch norms and values.”
In total, ten items referred to five different life-domains: Contact, upbringing, language,
culture and education. Respondents answered on a five-point scale (1 ¼ totally
disagree, 5 ¼ totally agree). Cronbach’s alpha for culture maintenance was 0.78 for
Dutch and immigrant employees. Cronbach’s alpha for culture adaptation showed
good statistical reliability for Dutch employees (0.81) and a fair reliability for
immigrant workers (0.63). As proposed by Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2000, 2006),
Euclidean distance scores were used to calculate the four acculturation orientations:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u ½ðideal score on adaptation scale 2 real score on adaptation scaleÞ2 þ ðideal score
t
on culture maintenance scale 2 real score on culture maintenance scaleÞ2
The ideal score for assimilation is 5 on the culture adaptation scale and 1 on the culture
maintenance scale. For separation the ideal score is 1 on adaptation and 5 on
maintenance, for integration it is 5 on both the adaptation and maintenance scale and
for marginalization
the ideal score is 1 on both scales. Scores were deducted from a
pffiffiffiffiffi
maximum score ð 32 ¼ 5:66Þ so that a high score indicates a small distance, whereas
a low score refers to a large distance.
Disconcordance in acculturation orientations on a location level was measured by
comparing means regarding the four acculturation orientations between the group of
immigrant workers and the group of host community workers at each of the four
locations.
Disconcordance in acculturation orientations on a relational level was measured by
calculating a standard deviation (SD) for each individual worker. We hereby compared
at the same
acculturation
orientations of individual workers (Xi) to their out-group (X)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 .
location: ½ðX i 2 XÞ
Intergroup contact. Participants were asked to report the total number of colleagues
with whom they worked together on a daily basis. Furthermore, participants were
asked to report how many of these colleagues had a Dutch and a non-western
immigrant background. A definition of non-western immigrants was included in the
questionnaire. For Dutch workers, intergroup contact was calculated by dividing the
The
multicultural
workplace
465
JMP
25,5
466
number of immigrant colleagues with the total number of colleagues. For immigrant
workers, intergroup contact was calculated by dividing the number of Dutch colleagues
with the total number of colleagues.
Intergroup work-relations. We measured intergroup work-relations by using a
six-item scale of van Veldhoven and Meijman (1994). We hereby included the two target
groups (i.e. Dutch workers and immigrant workers) in the questions, resulting in a total of
12 items. Two item examples are: “Do you feel appreciated by your Dutch colleagues?” and
“do you feel appreciated by your immigrant colleagues?” Respondents answered on a
five-point scale (1 ¼ not at all, 5 ¼ always). For the target group of Dutch workers,
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.77 for Dutch and 0.77 for immigrant workers. For the target group
of immigrant workers, Cronbach’s alpla was 0.75 for Dutch workers and 0.74 for
immigrant workers. From the above two scales, one overall measure for intergroup
work-relations was created. For Dutch workers, scores were included that measured
work-relations with immigrant colleagues. For immigrant workers, scores were included
that measured work-relations with Dutch colleagues.
Analyses
First, we performed paired t-tests to examine the hierarchy in acculturation orientations
for the immigrant and Dutch groups (H1 and H2). Next, we performed analyses of
variance to test whether disconcordance in acculturation orientations between Dutch
and immigrant workers related to intergroup work-relations on a location level (H3).
Thereafter, we performed multiple regression analyses to test whether disconcordance
in acculturation orientations was associated with intergroup work-relations on a
relational level (H4), and whether intergroup contact (H5) and ethnic group (Dutch
versus non-western immigrant) moderated this relationship (Explorative question 1).
3. Results
Descriptive statistics and preferred acculturation orientations
Means, SDs, and correlations regarding the study variables are displayed in Table I.
Results concerning the hierarchy in acculturation orientations of Dutch and
non-western immigrant workers are presented in Table II.
We first hypothesized that assimilation was the most preferred acculturation
orientation for Dutch workers, followed by integration, whereas separation and
marginalization would be the least preferred acculturation orientations (H1). Confirming
this hypothesis, Table I indeed showed that assimilation was the preferred acculturation
orientation among Dutch workers (M ¼ 3.71), followed by integration (M ¼ 3.00),
marginalization (M ¼ 2.04), and separation (M ¼ 1.65). Paired sample t-tests in Table II
indicated that the means for each of the four acculturation orientations differed
significantly for the Dutch group of workers.
Next, we hypothesized that integration was the preferred acculturation orientation
for non-western immigrant workers, followed by assimilation, while separation and
marginalization would be the least preferred acculturation orientations (H2). Table I
indeed showed that immigrant workers preferred integration (M ¼ 3.68) above
assimilation (M ¼ 2.98), followed by separation (M ¼ 2.08) and marginalization
(M ¼ 1.73). Paired t-tests in Table II indicated that each of the acculturation
orientations differed significantly for the immigrant group of workers.
Assimilation
Integration
Separation
Marginalization
Intergroup contact
Disconcordance assimilation
Disconcordance integration
Intergroup work-relations
0.92
0.84
0.79
0.71
0.14
0.67
0.59
0.59
3.71
3.00
1.65
2.04
0.09
0.86
0.79
3.97
Measures
2.98
3.68
2.08
1.73
0.42
1.01
0.98
4.05
0.78
0.94
0.61
0.87
0.35
0.58
0.60
0.70
Immigrant
(n ¼ 49)
Mean SD
1.405
2.458
0.363
16.642 * * *
14.698 * * *
8.241 * *
4.074 *
73.807 * * *
Correlations
F-test
2
3
4
5
6
7
–
20.63 * * *
–
20.86 * * *
0.33 * * *
–
0.12
20.80 * * *
0.24 * * *
–
20.18 *
0.22 *
0.21 *
20.10
–
0.29 * * * 20.21 *
20.42 * * * 20.16 20.03
–
20.02
20.12
20.25 * * 20.03 20.11
0.69 * * *
–
20.09
0.09
0.14
0.03
0.06 2 0.22 *
2 0.25 * *
1
Notes: Significance at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01, and * * *p , 0.001; abbreviations: Dutch, Dutch workers; immigrant, non-western immigrant workers;
SD, standard deviation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Dutch
(n ¼ 141)
Mean SD
The
multicultural
workplace
467
Table I.
Means, SDs, and
correlations of the study
variables
JMP
25,5
468
Disconcordance in acculturation orientations on a location level
Next, we performed analyses of variance across the four locations to test the
hypothesis that disconcordance in acculturation orientations would result in poorer
intergroup work-relations on a location level (H3). Results are displayed in Table III
and indicated that Dutch and immigrant groups of workers shared concordant
acculturation orientations at the first and the second location. Conversely, there was
disconcordance in acculturation orientations between the Dutch and immigrant groups
at the third and the fourth location. At the third location, Dutch workers preferred
assimilation to a higher degree compared to immigrant workers. Also, immigrant
workers preferred integration and separation to a higher degree compared to Dutch
workers. At the fourth location, assimilation was more preferred by Dutch workers
compared to immigrant workers, whereas immigrant workers preferred integration to
a higher degree than Dutch workers.
We compared the mean scores for intergroup work-relations at the first and second
location, characterized by a concordance in acculturation orientations, with the third
Paired differences
Table II.
Hierarchy in
acculturation orientations
among Dutch and
non-western immigrant
workers
Assimilation-integration
Assimilation-separation
Assimilation-marginalization
Integration-separation
Integration-marginalization
Segregation-marginalization
t
p
DMd
t
p
20.57
0.99
1.31
1.56
1.88
0.32
22.28
4.37
8.53
10.10
7.34
2.14
*
**
**
**
**
*
0.92
2.40
1.92
1.48
1.00
2 0.47
6.80
16.79
19.64
21.48
9.04
2 6.72
**
**
**
**
**
**
Notes: Significance at: *p , 0.05 and * *p , 0.001; abbreviations: DMi, differences in means for nonwestern immigrant workers; DMd, differences in means for Dutch workers
Location
Acculturation orientations
Mai
Mad
F-test
1.
Assimilation
Integration
Separation
Marginalization
Assimilation
Integration
Separation
Marginalization
Assimilation
Integration
Separation
Marginalization
Assimilation
Integration
Separation
Marginalization
3.40
3.17
2.00
2.12
2.96
3.50
2.21
1.82
2.98
3.92
2.11
1.57
3.11
3.49
1.74
1.69
3.70
3.09
1.66
2.08
3.38
3.29
1.85
1.88
4.04
2.97
1.35
1.87
3.98
2.86
1.43
1.99
1.09
0.07
1.38
0.02
1.34
0.39
1.28
0.03
18.42
17.81
14.83
3.65
6.05
3.94
1.15
1.40
2.
3.
Table III.
Differences in
acculturation orientations
between Dutch and
non-western immigrant
workers across the four
locations
DMi
4.
p
**
**
**
*
*
Notes: Significance at: *p , 0.05 and * *p , 0.001; aabbreviations: Mi, means for non-western
immigrant workers; Md, means for Dutch workers
and fourth location, characterized by disconcordance in acculturation orientations. As
predicted, analysis of variance indicated that the perceived quality of intergroup
work-relations was higher in the first and second location compared to the third and
fourth location (F(133, 1) ¼ 5.762; p , 0.018). This confirmed the third hypothesis.
Disconcordance in acculturation orientations on a relational level
We performed hierarchical regression analyses to test H4, H5, and Explorative
question 1. Results are displayed in Table IV. We only included workers who worked on
a daily basis with one or more colleagues from the opposite group. Out of 131 Dutch
workers, 77 reported to work with immigrant colleagues, and 36 out of 43 immigrant
workers reported to be working with Dutch colleagues. Furthermore, all workers
preferred either integration or assimilation. Therefore, we analyzed the effects of
disconcordance for these two types of acculturation orientations separately in Table IV.
In the first step, we included a dummy variable for the immigrant group (versus the Dutch
group) of workers, disconcordance scores, and intergroup contact. We also controlled for
the main effect acculturation orientations (i.e. assimilation and integration).
We hypothesized that a higher degree of disconcordance in preferred acculturation
orientations between individual workers compared to the out-group at the same location
(i.e. host community or immigrant group) would relate to poorer intergroup work-relations
(H4). Table IV (Model I) showed that a larger disconcordance in assimilation related
negatively to the perceived quality of intergroup work-relations (b ¼ 20.22; p , 0.05).
Similarly, a larger disconcordance in integration related negatively to intergroup
work-relations (b ¼ 20.26; p , 0.05). This confirmed H4. Furthermore, there were no
significant differences in intergroup work-relations as perceived by immigrant and Dutch
workers. Likewise, intergroup contact, and assimilation/integration as preferred
acculturation orientations were not related to intergroup work-relations.
In Model II, we tested the hypothesis that intergroup contact would positively
moderate the negative relationship between disconcordance in acculturation
orientations and intergroup work-relations (H5). In addition, we explored whether
Acculturation orientations
Model
Immigrant worker (0 ¼ Dutch, 1 ¼
immigrant)
Intergroup contact
Acculturation orientation
Disconcordance
Two-way interactions
Immigrant £ intergroup contact
Intergroup contact £ disconcordance
Immigrant worker £ disconcordance
Three-way interactions
Immigrant £ intergroup
contact £ disconcordance
Adjusted R 2 (%)
I
0.04
Intergroup work-relations (n ¼ 113)
Assimilation
Integration
II
III
I
II
0.05
0.04
20.01
0.00 20.01
0.07
0.24
0.25
20.22 * 20.27 * 20.08
20.22
20.13
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.15
20.26 * * 2 0.30 *
2 0.15
2 0.16
0.07
20.27
0.36
0.11
20.62 * *
2
1
10
Note: Significance at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01, and * * *p , 0.001
3.5
469
III
2 0.05
0.11
0.39
0.07
2 0.33
0.58 *
2 0.05
2 0.80 * * *
3.9
The
multicultural
workplace
12.9
Table IV.
Multiple regression
analyses on
disconcordance and
intergroup work-relations
at a relational level
JMP
25,5
470
immigrant workers would experience poorer intergroup work-relations as a
consequence of disconcordance compared to host community workers (Explorative
question 1). Results in Model II showed that none of the two-way interactions were
significant. This rejected H5. Also, based on Model II, the negative relationship between
disconcordance and intergroup work-relations appeared to be similar for immigrant and
Dutch workers.
In the third and final model, we explored whether the moderation effect of intergroup
contact on the relationship between disconcordance and intergroup work-relations
differed for Dutch workers compared to non-western immigrant workers. Interestingly,
this appeared to be the case. Results in Model III showed that intergroup contact
moderated the relationship between disconcordance (in either assimilation or integration)
and intergroup work-relations differently for the immigrant workers compared to the
Dutch workers. We plotted the interaction effects for Dutch and immigrant workers in
Figures 1-4 to examine the nature of this three-way interaction in more detail.
Figure 1.
Disconcordance
in assimilation and
intergroup contact for
Dutch workers
Work-relations immigrant colleagues
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Low contact frequency
High contact frequency
1
Low disconcordance
assimilation
High disconcordance
assimilation
Figure 2.
Disconcordance
in integration and
intergroup contact for
Dutch workers
Work-relations immigrant colleagues
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Low contact frequency
High contact frequency
1
Low disconcordance
integration
High disconcordance
integration
The
multicultural
workplace
Work-relations dutch colleagues
5
4.5
4
3.5
471
3
2.5
2
1.5
Low contact frequency
High contact frequency
1
Low disconcordance
assimilation
High disconcordance
assimilation
Figure 3.
Disconcordance in
assimilation and
intergroup contact for
immigrant workers
Work-relations dutch colleagues
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Low contact frequency
High contact frequency
1
Low disconcordance
integration
High disconcordance
integration
For Dutch workers, Figures 1 and 2 show that more disconcordance related to a poorer
quality of intergroup work-relations under conditions of low intergroup contact.
Conversely, under conditions of high intergroup contact, disconcordance had almost
no effect on the perceived quality of work-relations. For immigrant workers, Figures 3
and 4 show that disconcordance related to poorer intergroup work-relations under
conditions of high intergroup contact. In contrast, disconcordance related to better
intergroup work-relations under conditions of low intergroup contact.
4. Discussion
The main aim of this study was to examine whether the IAM of Bourhis et al. (1997) is
useful to predict intergroup work-relations in a multicultural workplace. This appears
to be the case. In line with the IAM model, this study shows that disconcordance
(i.e. disagreement) in acculturation orientations between host community and
immigrant workers relates to a poorer quality of intergroup work-relations. However,
intergroup contact appears to moderate this relationship differently for Dutch workers
Figure 4.
Disconcordance in
integration and intergroup
contact for immigrant
workers
JMP
25,5
472
compared to immigrant workers. These findings are discussed in detail below, together
with limitations of this study and suggestions for further research.
As hypothesized, host community (Dutch) workers had a different hierarchy of
acculturation orientations compared to immigrant workers. Dutch workers appear to
prefer assimilation above integration, while marginalization and separation are least
preferred (confirming H1). Put differently, Dutch workers want immigrants to completely
adapt to the Dutch culture, without maintaining aspects of their heritage culture.
Conversely, immigrant workers prefer integration above assimilation, while separation
and marginalization are least preferred (confirming H2). Immigrant workers thus prefer a
dual-orientation in which they both adapt to the host culture and maintain aspects of their
heritage culture at the same time. As such, this study generalizes findings from previous
studies performed in the society at large (Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver, 2003, 2004;
Ouarasse and van de Vijver, 2005) to a workplace context.
It is important to note that this study was performed among blue collar workers.
Peeters and Oerlemans (2009) recently performed another study on acculturation
orientations and job-related well-being among Dutch and non-western immigrant
workers with higher occupational levels. Surprisingly, immigrant workers in this
sample preferred assimilation and integration to the same degree. Higher educational
and occupational levels might thus coincide with immigrants’ acceptance of the host
culture. Future research is needed to determine the relationship between educational
and occupational levels on the one hand, and acceptance of the host culture among
immigrant workers on the other hand.
Furthermore, this study successfully replicated assumptions based on the IAM
(Bourhis et al., 1997, 2009) to the domain of work. We hereby considered disconcordance
in acculturation orientations on a location level and a relational level. In both instances,
a higher degree of disconcordance in acculturation orientations related to poorer
intergroup work-relations (confirming H3 and H4). It is important to mention that we
controlled for the main effect of acculturation orientations on intergroup work-relations.
Thus, disconcordance, rather than the degree of preference for assimilation or
integration, predicts the quality of intergroup work-relations.
Next, this study shows that intergroup contact buffers the negative relationship
between disconcordance and intergroup work-relations for host community (Dutch)
workers (confirming H5 for Dutch workers). An explanation for this buffering effect
among host community workers may be that intergroup contact reduces feelings of
anxiety, uncertainty and threat on how to approach and communicate with immigrant
groups (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006). Feelings of anxiety grow out of concerns about
how host community members should act, how they might be perceived, and whether
they will be accepted by the immigrant group (Stephan and Stephan, 1985). For
instance, recent studies demonstrated that intergroup anxiety mediated the relation
between intergroup contact and intergroup relations (Paolini et al., 2004; Stephan et al.,
2002). As intergroup contact is generally low for host community members, an increase
in intergroup contact would reduce feelings of anxiety and threat towards immigrant
workers, and result in better intergroup work-relations.
In contrast, this study shows that intergroup contact aggravates the negative
relationship between disconcordance and intergroup work-relations for immigrant
workers (disconfirming H5 for immigrant workers). One explanation for this unexpected
finding might be related to the difference in vitality positions between immigrant and
host community groups. Immigrant groups usually have a weaker vitality position
compared to the host community group (Bourhis et al., 1997; Phinney et al., 2001). It is
therefore more likely that immigrant groups experience pressure from the host
community group to assimilate to the host culture, and not vice versa. Especially, under
the condition of high intergroup contact, immigrant workers may be confronted with
pressures from host community workers to assimilate to the host culture, leading to
poorer intergroup work-relations.
A second explanation might be that there are variations in cognitive styles between
western and non-western groups. According to Witkin et al. (1974), people from western,
industrialized cultures tend to be more field-independent (FID) while people from
non-western cultures are more field-dependent (FD). Field dependence refers to the
degree to which perception of an object is influenced by the background or environment
in which it appears. The difference between FID and FD shows in regard to being more
analytical-critical foreground oriented versus being more holistic, backgroundcontextual-harmony oriented. FID people tend to be more autonomous, pay more
attention to concrete facts and are equipped with higher cognitive restructuring and
analytic abilities compared to FD people (Yiu and Saner, 2007). As such, host community
workers could perceive disconcordance in acculturation orientations as less problematic
because they are more analytical-critical and autonomous, whereas non-western
immigrant workers may perceive disconcordance as a disruption of the contextual
harmony between the two groups.
Limitations and recommendations for future research
No study is without limitations and this study is no exception. The sample size is fairly
small, and this study is limited to one organization. We therefore recommend that
future research replicates these findings to other organizations, and includes larger
groups of non-western immigrant workers. Furthermore, despite the explicit notion
of confidentiality (e.g. as verbally expressed by the research assistants), social
desirability could have played a role for some workers. Also, as we worked with a
Dutch questionnaire, misinterpretation of the questions cannot be ruled out (Meloen
and Veenman, 1990). This being said, research assistants were present to explain
survey questions. Also, the constructs used in this study show sufficient statistical
reliability for both host community and immigrant groups of workers. Furthermore, as
the data are cross-sectional, we cannot determine the causality of the relationships
described in this study. For example, poorer intergroup work-relations could feed back
to a higher disconcordance in acculturation orientations. Future studies should collect
longitudinal data to determine the causality of such relationships.
Another consideration refers to the measurement of acculturation orientations.
In this study, we used a two-statement measurement method to assess acculturation
orientations (Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver, 2000). However, the manner in which
acculturation orientations should be measured is hotly debated. Participants may be
distributed differently across the four acculturation orientations, depending on
differences in the conceptualization of acculturation orientations (Snauwaert et al.,
2003), or differences in studied life-domains (Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver, 2006).
It would help organizational research a great deal if specific acculturation measures are
developed that are aimed at studying acculturation within the domain of work.
The
multicultural
workplace
473
JMP
25,5
474
Future research may extent this research by including other important work-outcomes
besides intergroup work-relations. For instance, recent research suggests that an
integration orientation – both on a personal and a team level – relates positively to
creativity, performance, and employee well-being in multicultural teams (Oerlemans,
2009). Such promising findings should be further examined.
Managerial implications
This study shows that disconcordance in acculturation orientations between host
community and non-western immigrant workers relates to poorer intergroup
work-relations. Managers in organizations should therefore monitor such differences
in acculturation orientations among culturally diverse groups of workers.
Furthermore, research shows that acculturation orientations are – in part –
dependent on cultural factors in the society at large (Berry, 2006; DeZwart and
Poppelaars, 2007). For instance, on a societal level, Berry (2006, p. 28) distinguishes
between “melting pot” societies and “multicultural” societies. Melting pot refers to:
[. . .] a single dominant or mainstream society, on the margins of which are the various
minority groups. The common assumption is that culturally diverse groups absorb into the
mainstream culture in such a way that they essentially disappear.
Instead, in a “multicultural” society “[. . .] individuals and groups retain their cultural
continuity and a sense of their cultural identity and, on that basis, they participate in
the social framework of the larger society (p. 28).” Obviously, the melting pot context
exerts greater pressure on cultural minority groups to assimilate to the dominant
culture compared to the multicultural context. In addition, types of context may shift
over time. For instance, The Netherlands recently shifted from a multicultural society
towards a melting pot society (DeZwart and Poppelaars, 2007).
Similarly, acculturation orientations of workers are likely to be influenced by the
existing organizational culture. For example, Cox and Blake (1991) distinguish between
three types of cultures on an workers by changing their existing organizational level:
monolithic, plural, and multicultural organizations. Monolithic and plural organizations
are focussed on recruitment of ethnic minority employees, but ethnic minority groups are
ultimately expected to assimilate to the dominant organizational culture. Conversely, in
multicultural organizations, cultural differences are appreciated and used for
organizational and personal gain. Recent studies seem to suggest that only in the
latter context organizations can benefit from its cultural diversity (Ely and Thomas,
2001; Luijters et al., 2008; Oerlemans, 2009).
Changes in the organizational culture towards the multicultural model could be
implemented with small gestures, like being sensitive to variations in food (take into
account cultural or religious preferences), create facilities to exercise one’s religion (e.g.
locations for praying) or by supporting cultural and religious activities of non-western
immigrant workers (e.g. Ramadan). As non-western immigrant workers usually prefer
an integration orientation, an organizational culture that is multicultural may result in
non-western immigrant workers feeling more appreciated and included.
Furthermore, as host community workers in organizations are more and more
confronted with a multicultural workforce, it might be wise to implement programs
aimed at training intercultural competencies (Bhawuk, 2001; Cushner and Brislin,
1996). However, in our opinion, such training programs should first be carefully
evaluated on their effectiveness as there are some dangers towards implementing such
programs. For example, people might start to oversimplify variations in culture, using
stereotypes to fully attribute specific behaviour of colleagues as typical for their
cultural group.
This study also demonstrated that intergroup contact may facilitate intergroup
work-relations. Managers could therefore stimulate interethnic co-operation in teams,
for instance by re-organizing tasks to include culturally diverse groups of workers and
by giving positive feedback to culturally diverse groups (Jung and Sosik, 1999).
5. Final conclusion
This paper successfully applied the IAM (Bourhis et al., 1997) and “Intergroup contact
theory” (Pettigrew, 1998) to an organizational context, to explain differences in the
quality of intergroup work-relations as experienced by host community and
non-western immigrant workers. As such, it should be regarded of as a first step
towards explaining the mixed findings in cultural diversity research (Oerlemans et al.,
2008; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). By focussing on “deep-level” aspects of cultural
diversity in addition to “surface level” aspects, we are able to shed more light on the
complex relationships between cultural diversity in organizations and work-outcomes.
References
Allport, G.W. (1954), The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Arends-Tóth, J. and van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2000), “Multiculturalisme: Spanning tussen ideaal en
realiteit” (“Multiculturalism: tensions between ideal and reality”), Nederlands Tijdschrift
voor de Psychologie, Vol. 55, pp. 159-68.
Arends-Tóth, J. and van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2003), “Multiculturalism and acculturation: views of
Dutch and Turkish-Dutch”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 249-66.
Arends-Tóth, J. and van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2004), “Domains and dimensions in acculturation:
implicit theories of Turkish-Dutch”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 19-35.
Arends-Tóth, J. and van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2006), “Assessment of psychological acculturation”,
in Sam, D.L. and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Acculturation Psychology, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 142-62.
Berry, J.W. (1997), “Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation”, Applied Psychology – An
International Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 5-34.
Berry, J.W. (2006), “Contexts of acculturation”, in Sam, D.L. and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Acculturation
Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 27-42.
Berry, J.W., Kim, U., Minde, T. and Mok, D. (1987), “Comparative studies of acculturative stress”,
International Migration Review, Vol. 3, pp. 491-511 (special issue: Migration and Health).
Bhawuk, D.P.S. (2001), “Evolution of culture assimilators: toward theory based assimilators”,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 25, pp. 141-63.
Bourhis, R.Y., Barrette, G., El-Geledi, S. and Schmidt, R. (2009), “Acculturation orientations and
social relations between immigrant and host community members in California”, Journal
of Cross Cultural Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 443-67.
Bourhis, R.Y., Moise, L.C., Perreault, S. and Senecal, S. (1997), “Towards an interactive
acculturation model: a social psychological approach”, International Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 369-86.
The
multicultural
workplace
475
JMP
25,5
476
CBS (2007), “People with a foreign background”, available at: www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/
dossiers/allochtonen/methoden/begrippen/default.htm?ConceptID¼1013 (accessed
October 10, 2009).
Cox, T. and Blake, S. (1991), “Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizations”,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5, pp. 45-56.
Cushner, K. and Brislin, R.W. (1996), Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
DeZwart, F. and Poppelaars, C. (2007), “Redistribution and ethnic diversity in The Netherlands”,
Acta Sociologica, Vol. 50, pp. 387-99.
Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2001), “Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity
perspectives on work group processes and outcomes”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 229-73.
Giles, H., Bourhis, R.Y. and Taylor, D.M. (1977), “Towards a theory of language in ethnic group
relations”, in Giles, H. (Ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, Academic
Press, London, pp. 307-48.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), “Beyond relational demography: time and the
effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-107.
Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Jackson, S.E., Joshi, A. and Erhardt, N.L. (2003), “Recent research on team and organizational
diversity: SWOT analysis and implications”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 801-30.
Jackson, S.E., May, K.E. and Whitney, K. (1995), “Understanding the dynamics of diversity in
decision-making teams”, in Guzzo, R.A. and Salas, E. (Eds), Team Effectiveness and
Decision Making in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 204-61.
Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Horenczyk, G. and Schmitz, P. (2003), “The interactive nature of
acculturation: perceived discrimination, acculturation attitudes and stress among young
ethnic repatriates in Finland, Israel and Germany”, International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 79-97.
Jung, D. and Sosik, J. (1999), “Effects of group characteristics on work group performance:
a longitudinal investigation”, Group Dynamics, Vol. 3, pp. 279-90.
Luijters, K., Otten, S., van der Zee, K.I. and van Duin, J. (2008), Consequences of Cultural Diversity:
The Importance of Diversity Management, PrintPartners Ipskamp, Enschede.
McLeod, P. and Lobel, S. (1992), “The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small
groups”, Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 227-31.
Meloen, J.D. and Veenman, J. (1990), Het is maar de vraag . . . , onderzoek naar responseffecten bij
minderhedensurveys (It’s about the question . . . , research on response effects in minority
surveys), Vol. BV, Koninklijke Vermande BV, Lelystad.
Oerlemans, W.G.M. (2009), Ethnic Diversity at Work: About Interpersonal Relations, Well-being
and Performance in Ethnically Diverse Organizations, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Oerlemans, W.G.M., Peeters, M.C.W. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “Ethnic diversity at work: an
overview of theories and research”, in Näswall, K., Hellgren, J. and Sverke, M. (Eds),
The Individual in the Changing Working Life, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 211-32.
Ouarasse, O.A. and van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2005), “The role of demographic variables and
acculturation attitudes in predicting sociocultural and psychological adaptation in
Moroccans in The Netherlands”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 251-72.
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E. and Voci, A. (2004), “Effects of direct and indirect
cross-group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland:
the mediating role of an anxiety reduction mechanism”, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, Vol. 30, pp. 770-86.
Peeters, M.C.W. and Oerlemans, W.G.M. (2009), “The relationship between acculturation
orientations and work-related well-being: differences between ethnic minority and
majority employees”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Pettigrew, T.F. (1998), “Intergroup contact theory”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 49,
pp. 65-80.
Pettigrew, T.F. and Tropp, L.R. (2006), “A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 751-83.
Phinney, J.S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K. and Vedder, P. (2001), “Ethnic identity, immigration,
and well-being: an interactional perspective”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57 No. 3,
pp. 493-510.
Redfield, R., Linton, R. and Herskovits, M.J. (1936), “Memorandum for the study of
acculturation”, American Anthropologist, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 149-52.
Snauwaert, B., Soenens, B., Vanbeselaere, N. and Boen, F. (2003), “When integration does not
necessarily imply integration: different conceptualizations of acculturation orientations
lead to different classifications”, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 231-9.
Stephan, W.G. and Stephan, C.W. (1985), “Intergroupanxiety”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 41,
pp. 157-76.
Stephan, W.G., Boniecki, K.A., Ybarra, O., Bettencourt, A., Ervin, K.S. and Jackson, L.A. (2002),
“The role of threats in the racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites”, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28, pp. 1242-54.
van de Vijver, F.J.R. and Tanzer, N.K. (2003), “Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment:
an overview”, Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 119-35.
van Oudenhoven, J.P. (2002), Cross-culturele psychologie: De zoektocht naar overeenkomsten en
verschillen tussen culturen (Cross-cultural Psychology: The Search for Similarities and
Dissimilarities Between Cultures), Coutinho, Bussum.
van Veldhoven, M. and Meijman, T.F. (1994), Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met
een vragenlijst: De Vragenlijst Beleving en Beoordeling van de Arbeid (VBBA) (Measuring
Psychosocial Workload with a Questionnaire: The Questionnaire Experience and
Evaluation of Work (QEEW)), Nederlands Instituut voor Arbeidsomstandigheden
(Dutch Institute for Working Conditions), Amsterdam.
Watson, W.E., Johnson, L. and Zgourides, G.D. (2002), “The influence of ethnic diversity on
leadership, group process, and performance: an examination of learning teams”,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Wheeler, K.G. (2002), “Cultural values in relation to equity sensitivity within and across
cultures”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 612-27.
Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1998), “Demography and diversity in organizations: a review
of 40 years of research”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 77-140.
Witkin, H.A., Price-Williams, D., Bertini, M., Christiansen, B., Oltman, P.K., Ramirez, M. and
van Meelf, J. (1974), “Social conformity and psychological differentiation”, International
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 11-29.
The
multicultural
workplace
477
JMP
25,5
Yiu, L. and Saner, R. (2007), “Witkin’s cognitive styles and field theory applied to the study of
global managers and OD practitioners”, in Pasmore, W.A. and Woodman, R.W. (Eds),
Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 16, pp. 191-219.
Zagefka, H. and Brown, R. (2002), “The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit
and intergroup relations: immigrant-majority relations in Germany”, European Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 171-88.
478
About the authors
Wido G.M. Oerlemans is a Post-doctoral Researcher and works for the RISBO Contract Research
Department at Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. His topics of interest include
ethnic diversity, subjective well-being, and performance. Wido G.M. Oerlemans recently finished
his dissertation, entitled: “Ethnic diversity at work: about interpersonal relations, well-being and
performance in ethnically diverse organizations.” Wido G.M. Oerlemans is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: Oerlemans@risbo.eur.nl
Maria C.W. Peeters is an Associate Professor at the Department of Social and Organizational
Psychology at Utrecht University, The Netherlands. She conducts research on the broad topic of
Occupational Health Psychology. She has a special interest in cultural diversity at work,
work-home interference, and older workers. Recently, she was a Guest Editor of a special issue
about “The work and well-being of older workers” of the Journal of Managerial Psychology.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Applications in Social Justice Counselor Training: Classroom Without Walls
Bemak, Fred;Chung, Rita Chi-Ying
The Journal of Humanistic Counseling; Fall 2011; 50, 2; ProQuest Central
pg. 204
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment