models of acculturation for intra-organizational cultural diversity

Models of Acculturation for Intra-organizational Cultural Diversity

Taylor Cox Joycelyn Finley-Nickelson University of Michigan

Abstract The globalization of business and demographic trends of many nations of the world are creating markets and workj6orces that are increasingly culturally diverse. Therefore a key to effectiveness for organizations of the 1990s is proper handling of cultural diferences of the various groups represented in their workforces and markets. Previous literature in the fields of sociology and psychology, and the organizational literature on mergers and acquisitions, has emphasized acculturation processes as central to understanding cross-cultural relations. However this knowledge has not been applied to explicate cultural dynamics within organizations. This paper builds on this previous literature to develop a theoretical model of acculturation dynamics for culturally diverse organizations. Factors which are expected to determine modes of acculturation are identified, and a series of theoretical propositions are offered, which spec& the conditions under which each of the modes of acculturation will be manifested.

Rkssume‘ La globalisation des tendances commerciales et dkmographiques de bon nombre de pays crke des marche‘s et des forces de travail d u n e diversitk culturelle sans cesse croissante. Ainsi, la elk du succ2s des entreprises des annkes 1990 rkside dans l’art de traiter les diffkrences culturelles des divers groupes reprksentks dans leurs march& et leurs forces de travail. La littkrature spkcialiske dans les domaines de la sociologie, de la psychologie et de l’administration, et notam- ment dans des articles sur les fusions et les acquisitions, ont dkja mis I’accent SUI’ I’ importance du phknomsne dacculturation pour comprendre les relations interculturelles. Or, cette connaissance n’a pas ktk appliquke pour expliquer la dynamique culturelle au sein des organisations. Le present article se fonde sur cette littkrature antkrieure pour dkvelop- per un mod2le thkorique de dynamique dacculturation pour les entreprises de cultures diverses. I1 dkfinit les facteurs susceptibles de de‘terminer les modes dacculturation et prksente une skrie de propositions thkoriques qui prkcisent les conditions dans lesquelles chacun des modes dacculturation se manifestera.

The globalization of business and demographic trends of many nations of the world are creating markets and workforces that are increasingly culturally diverse. For example, it is estimated that in the next decade more than 40% of all net additions to the workforce in the United States will be ethnic minorities including many immigrants from Asian and Latin American countries (Fullerton, 1987). Further, organizations based in many other countries of the world including Canada (Frideres, 1989; Ramcharan, 1982), Italy (Olivares, 1987), The Pacific Islands (Renshaw, 1987), Germany (Antal & Kresbach, 1987) and Japan (Steinhoff & Tanaka, 1987) are struggling with issues related to the increased presence of ethnic minorities or of women in management ranks. These trends highlight the need for theory and research which ad- dresses the impact of cultural diversity resulting from changing profiles of racioethnic (race and/or ethnic), gender

Address all correspondence to Taylor Cox, Graduate School of Business Adrninlstrauon The Univenity of Michigan, Ann Arbor. MI 48109 1234

and nationality identities on organizational behavior and effectiveness. While a significant number of articles have appeared in the management literature on gender issues, there has been far less attention given to racioethnicity and nationality identities of organization members. Moreover, the management literature on gender and racioethnicity has tended to focus on equal opportunity issues, and largely ignored the cultural aspects of workforce diversity. For example, a recent review of research published in 20 leading management journals indicates that of 201 articles dealing with racioethnicity, more than half dealt with hiring and organizational policy aspects of equal employment opportunity (Cox & Nkomo, 1990).

Recently, a number of writers have called attention to the importance of the cultural dynamics of diversity. Writers who have addressed this issue include Dunphy (1987), Hofstede (1980,1984), and Schneider (1988) for the nationality dimension of diversity; Cox, Lobel and McLeod (in press), Cox and Nkomo (1990), Fernandez (1981), Foeman and Pressley (1987) for the racioethnicity dimension (1989); and Belenky,

0 ASAC 1991 90 RCSA / CJAS, 8 (2), 90-100

MODELS OF ACCULTURATION.. . COX & FINLEY-NICKELSON

Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule (1986), and Gilligan (1982) for the gender dimension. A central theme in all of these writings is that different racioethnic, gender and nationality groups represent distinct cultures within the broader culture of the society or organization in which they live and work. Persons with group identities in a minority culture can be expected to be influenced by norms of behavior and values that may be quite different from those of the dominant culture group. Therefore, a key to effectiveness for organizations with diverse workforces, is to address the cultural differences between the various groups represented.

Acculturation The term acculturation has been used to refer to the process

for addressing cultural differences and of cultural change and adaptation between groups, especially where one or more minority groups (numerical minority in a particular social context) are being merged with amajority group (Berry, 1980). Work in the fields of sociology and psychology highlight the importance of acculturation processes to understanding cross- group interactions in culturally heterogeneous societies. General or multiethnic-group discussions of acculturation processes include Berry (1983), Lambert and Taylor (1988), Padilla (1980) and Wong-Rieger and Quintana (1987). Writ- ers have also addressed the importance of acculturation to understanding human behavior in diverse groups for specific racioethnic groups such as African-Americans (Valentine, 197 I), Mexican-Americans (Hazuda, Stem, & Haffner, 1988) Japanese-Americans (Kiefer, 1974) and French-Canadians '(Breton, Bumet, Hartmann, Isajiw, & Lennards, 1975).

While this previous research and theory has established the centrality of acculturation to understanding intercultural group dynamics, it has focused almost exclusively on societal diversity. The concept of acculturation has rarely been discussed in the context of organizational behavior. Recently however, acculturation processes have been addressed in the literature on mergers and acquisitions (Malekzadeh & Nahavandi, 1990; Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988). Using the acculturation typology of Berry (1983), Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1988) argue that the extent to which a merger will be successful is greatly influenced by levels of congruity in preferred modes of acculturation between the acquired and the acquiring firm. Preferred modes of acculturation, in turn, are determined by such factors as the desire to preserve the culture of the pre- merger organizations, the extent to which the acquiring firm is tolerant of cultural diversity and the degree of product/market relatedness among the firms. In a follow-up article, the same authors (Malekzadeh & Nahavandi, 1990) describe case examples of mergers which illustrate their theory. Other writers who have addressed acculturation processes in the context of mergers and acquisitions include Buono and Bowditch (1989) and Sales and Mirvis (1984).

While the cited work on mergers and acquisitions focuses on cultural differences between organizations, we believe it may be adapted to address intra-organizational cultural diversity. Accordingly, the objective of this paper is to present a theory of intra-organizational acculturation. The paper builds on previous literature on culture issues in mergers and acqui-

sitions., as well as related work in the fields of sociology and psychology to develop a model of acculturation dynamics for culturally diverse organizations. Following the approach of Nahavandi and Malekzadeh, (1988) modes of acculturation will first be defined, and then factors expected to determine modes of acculturation will be identified and explained. Spe- cific theoretical propositions will be offered as to the relationship between the factors and each of the various modes of acculturation.

Modes of Acculturation

Berry (1984) has suggested a typology of acculturation processes which identifies four modes of acculturation as follows: 1. assimilation, 2. separation, 3. deculturation, and 4. integration.

Assimilation Assimilation refers to a one way adaptation process in

which the culture of one group (the dominant culture) becomes the standard of behavior for all other cultures merging into the society. Everyone, regardless of cultural heritage is expected to conform to the norms and values of the dominant group and little, if any, of the culture of minority groups is preserved. A number of writers have noted that this has been the predominant approach in western organizations of the past (Domm & Stafford, 1972; Klein, 1980). Hampton, Summer and Webber ( 1987) have provided a good illustration of this approach in their advice to racioethnic minorities and women seeking careers in predominantly Anglo-male organizations:

Conform to the culture style in appropriate ways such as language and dress. Learn to play golf or tennis and talk about stock prices or whatever is necessary to encourage the group to feel comfort- able around you. Most (minorities) have made it by learning to behave like traditional white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture ... (p. 93).

Separation According to Berry (1983) separation refers to cultural

merger situations in which the minority group/s are unwilling or unable to adapt to the dominant culture and as a result seek cultural and often physical autonomy from the dominant culture. Under separation, cultural exchange between the two parties is minimal. At the societal level, this form of acculturation can be seen in the prevalence of residential segregation for some minority groups. It should be noted that separation is often reinforced by both the dominant and the minority group. For example, the residential segregation of African- Americans and "Black" Hispanics in the United States is a function of both discrimination and prejudice against these groups by Anglos, and preferences of many members of the minority groups to live with others who share their cultural heritage (Massey & Denton, 1988; Massey & Mullan, 1984). A similar history applies to other groups such as Chinese

91 RCSA/CJAS,S(2), 90-100

MODELS OF ACCULTURATION COX & RNLEY-NICKELSON

Americans as evidenced, for example, by the existence of "Chinatown" locations in San Francisco and New York.

At the interorganizational level of analysis, Malekzadeh and Nahavandi ( 1990) cite the merger of Shearson and Ameri- can Express as an example of the separation mode of acculturation. Managerial and cultural exchanges between the parties were minimal and there was a mutual acceptance of partitioning. A second example is the merger of the Urban and Suburban banks as discussed by Buono and Bowditch (1989). In that merger, members of the acquired Urban bank resisted assimilation into the culture of the Suburban Bank which they preceived as distinctly different from their own. The result was the development of a "counter-culture" within the Urban bank that stood in opposition to the predominant culture of the post-merger organization.

Deculturation The third mode of acculturation discussed by Berry is

deculturation in which neither the minority nor the majority culture is highly valued by members or influential in framing behavior of minority members of the society or organization. Thus there are members of society who experience a lot of confusion about cultural identity because they do not have strong ties to any cultural group. Morton (1981) offers an example of this in his description of "transilients" in the Canadian society. He notes that from 1952-1962, large num- bers of immigrants came to Canada with the intention of finding employment for a limited period of time after which they would return to their native lands. Within the context of Canadian society, these groups had no communities of their own and did not identify with the existing minority groups of Canada. On the other hand, they also were not inclined to assimilate to the dominant culture of Canada due to their expectation of staying there only temporarily.

Pluralism Berry uses the term integration to refer to a two-way

acculturation process in which both culture groups change to some degree to reflect norms and values of the other. Although the term integration, as defined by Berry, may be an appropriate label, it has frequently been used with different connotations than the one intended here. Therefore, we prefer, in agreement with Triandis (1976), to employ the term "cultural pluralism". The origin of the term cultural pluralism is found in the essays of the early 1900s by Horace Kallen (1924). In discussing the cultural landscape of America, Kallen emphasized both the interdependence among members of the merging groups and the importance of preservation of the minority cultures. The idea of a mutual appreciation for the contributions of each culture is also central to the meaning of pluralism.

In the organizational context, the term pluralism suggests an acculturation process in which minority culture members assimilate on a limited number of behaviors while retaining substantial differences on other dimensions. In the literature on mergers and acquisitions, Siehl, Ledford, Silverman and Fay (1 988) have expressed the ideas of the pluralism concept

in their discussion of "orthogonal" subcultures. A specific example of pluralism acculturation from the merger and acquisition literature is the acquisition of Rolm by IBM in which IBM agreed to allow Rolm the independence that is needed to retain a culture which emphasized entrepreneurship (Malekzadeh & Nahavandi, 1990). A second example is the acquisition strategy of DANA Corporation as described by Buono and Bowditch (1989). Instead of attempting a cultural "takeover", Dana attempts to honor the culture and heritage of an acquired firm and to establish a dual identity in which "a new home is added to the Dana Family" (p. 172).

Figure 1 Determinants of Mode of Acculturation for Intra-organizational Cultural Diversity

Individual Level Factors

Culture group identity structures of minority- culture members

In ter-G rou p Factors

Degree of similarity of norm systems

Degree of complementary of norm systems

Knowledge of specific cultural differences

Organizational factors

Degree to which cultural diversity is valued

Organizational culture identity structure

-7 Mode of Acculturation

Assimilation Separation Deculturation Pluralism

________ ~

Factors Determining the Acculturation Process

Figure 1 identifies 6 factors thought to determine the mode of acculturation that is most likely to occur when members of minority cultural groups enter organizations which are domi- nated by majority group members. (i.e., where members of one cultural group hold a large numerical majority and pre- dominate in positions of power and authority).

As shown in Figure 1, the mode of acculturation that develops is posited to be defined by a combination of individual, inter-group, and organizational characteristics. In the next sections of the paper, each of the 6 factors will be explained, and theoretical propositions will be offered as to how they impact modes of acculturation.

92 RCSA/CJAS,S(2),90-100

MODELS OF ACCULTURATION. . . COX & RNLEY-NICKELSON

Culture Identity Structures

Explanation of the factor. The term culture identity structure refers to the profile of

culture-group affiliations that are meaningful for an individual's self-concept. Previous research has established the importance of these profiles for understanding inter-group behavior (Berry & Annis, 1988; Matsumoto, Meredith & Masuda, 1970). Among the major findings of this research are the following: 1. individual culture identity structures are measurable (Hazuda, Stem, & Haffner, 1988; Ramirez, 1983); 2. identity structures should be measured by levels of identity with both the majority and the minority cultures of a cultural merger situation (Bond & Yang, 1982; McFee, 1968); 3. Identification of majority-group members (in particular An- glos) with minority cultures is often minimal (Hazuda, Stern, & Haffner, 1988; Wong-Rieger & Quintana, 1987); 4. members of minority cultures are often "bicultural" in that they identify strongly with both their minority-culture group and with the majority culture (Bell, 1990; Ramirez, 1983; Valen- tine, 1971). Therefore an "additive" (non-zero sum) view of identity profiles is appropriate (Wong-Rieger & Quintand, 1987).

Based on a review of research using measures of cultural identity profiles (Femandez-Barillas & Morrison, 1984; McFee, 1968; Montgomery & Orozco, 1984; Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1980; Wong-Reiger & Quintana, 1987), the following typology is suggested for classification of different culture identity structures for members of minority groups: (1) anomic: identification with both the minority culture and the majority culture is low; (2) mono-cultural minority: identification with the minority culture is high and identification with the majority culture is low; (3) mono-cultural majority: identification with the minority culture is low, but identification with the majority culture is high; (4) bicultural: strong identification with both the minority and majority cultures.

The anomic identity structure has been discussed by Mont- gomery and Orozco (1984) and by also Sales and Mirvis (1984). Previous research on individual acculturation has ac- knowledged the potential for such an identity structure; however, findings indicate that relatively few individuals ac- tually posess it (McFee, 1968; Ramirez, Cox & Castaneda, 1977; Wong-Rieger & Quintana, 1987). The mono-cultural minority and mono-cultural majority structures represent individuals who identify solely with one cultural group. Research in the United States indicates that the mono-cultural majority identity structure predominates among Whites (Hazuda, Stem, & Haffner, 1988; Wong-Rieger and Quintana, 1987). In addition, Wong-Rieger and Quintana (1987) found that a significant percentage of minority-culture individuals are mono-cultural minority and, in a study of Mexican-Ameri- cans, Femandez-Barillas and Momson (1 984) found equal percentages of mono-cultural minorities and mono-cultural majorities.

As previously noted, biculturalism refers to individuals who are knowledgeable about, and identify with, norms and values of two different cultural groups. Some previous research on acculturation has treated biculturalism by dividing .

it into bicultural-majority and bicultural-minority categories (McFee, 1968; Wong-Reiger & Quintana, 1987). However others have not made this distinction (Bell, 1990; Femandez- Barrilas & Morrison, 1984; Szapocznik, Santisteban, Kurtines, Perez-Vidal, & Hervis, 1988). For purposes of this paper, the simpler conception of bicultural as someone who has moderate to strong identification with both the majority- group culture and their minority-group will be used.

Impact of rulture-identi0 on acculturation. The link between culture identity structures of minority

members and modes of acculturation seems reasonably straightforward. Anomic identity structures are suggestive of the deculturation mode in which minority members do not identify strongly with either their minority group or the majority. In discussing the cultural implications of mergers and acquisitions, Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1988) cite cases in which the acquired company does not place a high value on its own culture, but also does not want to assimilate into the acquiring company's culture. The result, they argue, is a state of deculturation in which there is little impetus for cultural change for either party. The parallel for the present discussion is where a minority culture member with an anomic identity structure enters an organization in which the organizational culture is poorly defined and weakly enforced. Under such conditions, there is little impetus for cultural change for either majority or minority group members. Proposition 1: When the culture identity of minority group

members is anomic and the organization culture is weak, organizations will tend to display the deculturation mode of acculturation.

When minority-group members identify strongly with the majority group, but only weakly with their minority group, the assimilation mode of acculturation should be favored. Since the individuals have internalized the values and norms of the dominant group, the assimilation process would not be im- peded by an identity struggle. This logic is supported by the research of Matsumoto, Meredith and Masuda (1970) who found that Japanese-Americans living in Honolulu had lower levels of minority group identity than Japanese Americans living in Seattle. They also report that the Honolulu Japanese- Americans are the most assimilated to Anglo-American norms of all the regional Japanese in the United States. They conclude that the higher levels of assimilation for the Honolulu group were due to the weaker identity with the Japanese culture.

Further support is found in the "consistency model" of cultural adaptation which holds that individuals will seek to align their culture identity structures with levels of behavioral adaptation to majority culture norms. For example, a person with strong majority group identity who comes under pressure to conform to majority culture norms would not be expected to resist the pressure to conform since conforming is "consis- tent with" hisfher individual identity. On the other hand, a person with a strong minority-group identity would either resist the pressure to conform or lower hisher minority-group identity in order to achieve consistency. This model has been

93 RCSAICJAS, S(2). 90-100

MODELS OF ACCULTURATION COX & FTNLEY-NICKELSON

used in empirical studies with Canadian Indians (Wong- Reiger, 1983) and with foreign students in Canada (Wong-Reiger, 1982, 1984). Proposition 2: When minority member identity structures

are mono-cultural majority, organizations will tend to display the the assimilation mode of acculturation.

In contrast to mono-cultural majority individuals, the consistency model would suggest that bicultural minority-group members would resist pressures toward a full assimilation with the majority. Bicultural individuals should be most comfort- able with pluralism because it allows them to adapt to the majority culture on a limited number of critical behaviors while still maintaining minority group identity in other behavioral domains. The multiplicity in the organizational culture implied in pluralism should permit biculturals to enact behaviors from both norm systems which they value. Proposition 3: When identity structures of minority-culture

members are bicultural, organizations will tend to display the pluralism mode of acculturation.

In cases where majority group norms and values are largely rejected by minority group members in favor of minority group norms, (as in the mono-cultural minority identity structure), we would expect for a separation mode of acculturation to be favored. This has been evidenced to some degree at the societal level by French-Canadians who often take the position that pluralism inevitably leads to assimilation and a loss of the minority-culture identity. Many French-Canadians therefore have advocated separatism from Anglophone Canada (Mor- ton, 1981). The feasibility of separatism within the organizational context is limited by the degree of task interdependence between members of different groups. However even at the organization level of analysis, separation may be feasible in cases where there is extreme job segregation of minorities at the low end of the job hierarchy such that task interdependence with majority group members is minimized. Proposition 4: When culture identity structures of minority-

culture members are mono-cultural minority, and task interdependence with majority group members is low, organizations will tend to display the separation mode of acculturation.

Similarity of Norm Systems. Referring again to Figure 1, the first group-level factor

thought to determine the mode of acculturation is the degree of similarity between the cultural norms of the minority culture and those of the majority. The importance of this factor has been suggested by De Anda's discussion of bicultural socialization (de Anda, 1984). She argues that dual socialization for minorities (i.e., in both a minority and majority culture) is made possible by the presence of significant overlap in the respective norm systems. De Anda also explicitly makes the connection between degrees of overlap in norm systems and processes of acculturation. She argues that different levels of

overlap is responsible for differences in the relative ease of assimilation of different minority groups. For example, she states that the "melting pot" as a description of acculturation in the United States, was more applicable to European immigrants than for other groups such as Black-African Americans and Hispanics because of greater divergence from the Anglo- American culture for the latter two groups.

The following excerpt from a description of the acquisition of a small entertainment firm (Acme) by the operator of a chain of upscale family-oriented entertainment facilities (Movies), offers an illustration of how assimilation is facilitated by norm overlap:

The values espoused by Movies were similar to those exposed by Acme. .... This greatly facilitated integration of the acquisition and communication with Acme employees about the implications of the deal. (Siehl et al., 1988, p. 55).

Inter-group similarity in norms and values is therefore expected to facilitate acculturation modes which entail adaptation by minorities to the majority culture, namely assimilation, and to a lessor extent, pluralism. Since pluralism demands less conformity to majority culture norms than assimilation, it would be favored when the amount of overlap in norm/values between groups is only moderate.

Finally, when inter-group norm systems have little overlap, the separation mode of acculturation may emerge. The ab- sence of even a core of similarity in norms will hinder cross-cultural interaction in several ways. Communications may be strained, and behavioral uncertainty will be high (i.e., predictability of the behavior of outgroup members will be low). When faced with such uncertainty, group members may retreat into their own cultural group and keep cross-cultural contact to a minimum. Proposition 5a:

Proposition 5b:

Proposition 5c:

When norm/value systems between the majority group and the minority group are highly similar (high overlap condition), organizations will tend to display the assimilation mode of acculturation. When norm/value systems between the majority group and the minority group are moderately similar (medium overlap), organizations will tend to display the pluralism mode of acculturation. When norm/value systems between the majority group and the minority group are highly dissimilar (low overlap), organizations will tend to display the separation mode of acculturation.

Complementarity of Norm Systems. Kitano (1 976) has argued that modes of acculturation are

influenced by the degree of complementarity of norm systems in addition to the degree of similarity. As an example, he concludes from his own research that the assimilation of Japanese people into Anglo societies and organizations has

94 RCSAICJAS, 8 (2), 90-100

MODELS OF ACCULTURATION.. . COX & FTNLEY-NICKELSON

been greatly facilitated by high compatibility between West- em-Anglo middle-class value structures and Japanese culture. Specifically, he observes that the Japanese cultural norms of obedience to authority, conformity to group norms, and non- aggressiveness have historically fit well with the Anglo tendency to treat non-Americans as lower status members of the organization. Other writers have stated that Asians, in general, have been amenable to conforming to Anglo-Ameri- can society, and thus the Asian norm of “sensitivity to group norms” has been highly complementary with the expectation of majority-group members that minorities would readily assimilate to the prevailing organizational culture (Lee & Green, 1988;Wall Street Journal, 5-1-90). Further, Kitano (1976) observes that this kind of complementarity may effectively substitute for direct similarities in norm systems between cultures. Although these examples deal specifically with Asians, it seems reasonable that the proposition that inter- group norm complementarity facilitates assimilation would apply more generally, and a similar argument has been made about the inclusion of white women in the management structures of predominantly Anglo-male organizations (McGoldrick, Garcia-Preto, Hines, & Lee, 1989). Proposition 6: When overlap in the norm/value systems be-

tween the majority and minority groups is not high, the assimilation mode of acculturation may still be employed if the merging cultures are highly complementary to one another.

Knowledge of specific cultural differences. A third group-level factor expected to impact modes of

acculturation is the amount of knowledge among minority group members about the cultural values and norms of the majority group and vice versa. This item is related to the issue of culture identity profile. However, here the focus is on knowledge of norms and not necessarily on personal acceptance or identification with those norms. The contention that knowledge of another group’s culture impacts modes of acculturation is generally based on the contact hypothesis of cross-cultural research. This is the idea that attitudes toward, and acceptance of, differences between groups are greatly influenced by the amount of cross-cultural contact. In general, high contact is assumed to lead to higher mutual understanding and acceptance, and as members of minority and majority groups increase levels of knowledge about one another, bam- ers to assimilation should be reduced. These ideas have been advanced in discussions about minority-majority relations in the United States (Glazer & Moynihan, 1973), and similar ideas have been suggested by Berry’s research on diversity in Canada. He found that the more familiar one ethnic group was with another, the more likely it was for positive qualities to be attributed to the outgroup (Berry, 1984). However, recent research indicates that the relationship between cross-cultural contact and acculturation may be more complex. Recent research on acculturation processes in the United States shows that while the knowledge of, and adaptation toward, the Anglo culture by Hispanics and Asians has been significant, knowledge and adaptation of Anglos to the minority cultures has

been negligible (Hazuda, Stem, & Haffner, 1988; Wong- Reiger & Quintana, 1987). This research suggests that contact alone does not ensure mutual understanding, and that the level of cross-cultural learning among minority-group members is often higher than that of majority group members. The work of Alderfer ( 1982) and Alderfer and Tucker ( 1 988) on race relations in the United States reinforces this conclusion. They observe that because of the numerical and status dominance of whites, blacks hoping to fair well in racially mixed settings are under heavy pressure to learn about white culture. However the reverse is not true. In general, the position of dominance makes learning about minority cultures optional, and according to the research cited above, rarely takes place. In such situations, where knowledge of the majority culture among minority group members is high but the reverse is not true, a one-way assimilation process of minorities toward the majority culture is indicated. Proposition 7: When knowledge of specific cultural

norms/values of the other group is high for minority-group members but low for majority group members, organizations will tend to display the assimilation mode of acculturation.

Alternatively, when cross-cultural knowledge is low among minority group members, they would be unable to successfully adapt to the dominant culture. As implied previously, such ignorance of the majority culture by minority group members is only feasible when pressures to conform to the majority culture are not high, and task interdependence between minorities and majorities is low. For their part, the majority group has no incentive to leam the culture of the minority group and thus a state of mutual ignorance occurs. Under these conditions, cultural autonomy of majority and minority groups is likely. Proposition 8: When knowledge of specific cultural

norms/values of the other group is low for both majority and minority members, organizations will tend to display the separation mode of acculturation.

A third scenario concerning inter-cultural knowledge is where cross-cultural learning is reciprocal between the majority and minority groups yielding high knowledge in both directions. Recent descriptions of the characteristics of multicultural organizations , and of organization change efforts to create pluralism, have emphasized education programs de- signed to achieve such mutual knowledge (Copeland, 1988; Cox, 1991). The logic of this is that tolerance and valuing of cultural differences requires understanding and knowledge of the cultural norms and values of the various groups. This is especially important in cultivating a valuing differences atti- tude among majority group members since they often have little knowledge of minority cultures. Thus previous writers on cross-cultural training have stressed that creating reciprocal knowledge about cultural norms often requires more attention to the majority group than the minority groups of organizations (Fernandez, 1981 ; Triandis, 1976).

95 RCSA/CJAS,8(2),90-100

MODELS OF ACCULTURATION COX & FINLEY-NICKELSON

Proposition 9: When cross-cultural knowledge is high among both majority and minority culture members, organizations will tend to display the pluralism mode of acculturation.

Organizational Factors

Degree to which diversity is valued. At the organizational level of analysis, one factor that is

expected to influence modes of acculturation is the extent to which diversity itself is highly valued in the organizational culture. The importance of this factor has frequently been addressed in writings on pluralistic societies (Berry, 1984; Frideres, 1989; McLeod, 1979; Triandis, 1976), and has recently begun to appear in writings about multicultural organizations (Cox, 1991; Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988; Sales & Mirvis, 1984). In their discussion of acculturation processes in mergers and acquisitions, Malekzadeh and Naha- vandi (1 990) and Nahavandi and Malekzadeh (1 988) provide theory and some case examples indicating that modes of acculturation among merging parties will be partly determined by whether or not diversity is valued. If the acquiring firm does not value diversity (is unicultural) then the emerging acculturation mode will normally be deculturation or assimilation. Alternatively, if the acquiring firm does value diversity (multicultural organization) then either separation (individual firm autonomy) or pluralism will occur. They further argue that among multicultural acquiring firms, pluralism will be favored in mergers among firms with similar products, whereas separation will occur if product/markets are highly dissimilar. Similar rationales can be made for explicating likely acculturation patterns for intra-organizational cultural diversity. Organizations which do not place a high value on diversity will tend to impose pressure on all members to conform to a single system of existing organizational norms and values. Proposition 10a: When the organization culture does not place

high value on cultural diversity, organizations will tend to display the assimilation mode of acculturation.

Alternatively, organizations which place high value on diversity will tend to favor either separation or pluralism in order to preserve the richness of the differences that members of different cultural backgrounds bring to the organization. In inter-organizational acculturation (as with mergers and acquisitions) the separation mode is made feasible by the presence of two, previously independent organizations, which, if de- sired, can remain relatively autonomous in the post-merger environment. However, in the context of intra-organizational cultural diversity, opportunity for effective separation of cultural groups is severely diminished. As suggested earlier, (Proposition 4) separation is thought to be feasible to the extent that task interdependence among cultural groups is low. An example is the traditional structure of multinational organizations in which foreign affiliates are run by natives and managed largely as culturally autonomous units (Prahalad, 1990). However, to the extent that task interdependence is high.

and/or organizations desire a high level of coordination among cultural units (as preferred by many multinationals in recent years), it is important that all members, regardless of cultural background, share a set of "core values" of the organizational culture (Ghoshal & Barlett, 1988). Under this latter scenario, the pluralism mode of acculturation is indicated because, in contrast to separation, the pluralism mode contemplates a balance of shared and divergent behavioral norms. By definition, pluralism provides for common norms in some behavioral arenas while tolerating substantial retention of minority-group norms and values in arenas where shared norms are not essential. Proposition lob: When the organization culture places high

value on diversity and task interdependence and coordination requirements among cultural groups are low, organizations will tend to display the separation mode of acculturation.

Proposition 1Oc: When the organization culture places a high value on diversity and task independence and coordination requirements among cultural groups are high, organizations will tend to display the pluralism mode of acculturation.

Organizational Culture Identity Structures

Explanation of the factor. A second organizational factor predicted to influence intra-

organizational acculturation processes is the culture identity structure of the organization. Earlier in this paper, culture identity structures of individuals were discussed; however, the literature on organization culture implies that the concept of culture identity structures may also apply to organizations. For example, organizational cultures are sometimes characterized as "strong" and "weak" usually on the basis of the extent to which norms and values are clearly defined and rigorously enforced (Dennison, 1989; Mitroff & Kilman, 1984; Pascale, 1985). An organization with a weakculture has ill-defined norms and values and/or low enforcement so that pressure to conform to organizationally prescribed behaviors is relatively low. Alternatively, a strong culture is one in which organizational values and norms are clearly defined and much attention is given to member conformity so that adherence is widespread (Weiner, 1988).

The matter of pressure to conform to organizational norms is also addressed by research on organizational socialization. For example, Schein (1984) reports that organizations place different levels of importance on different norms and values. Some are treated as norms for which members must conform in order to survive in the system, while for others compliance is strongly preferred but not mandatory for survival. Schein labeled the mandatory norms as "pivotal" and the non-mandatory norms as "relevant"; however, we will substitute the term "peripheral" to be more descriptive of the connotation intended by relevant norms (i.e., non-essential). According to Schein, norms on such things as dress, decorum and political party affiliation are normally treated as peripheral norms, but in

96 RCSA/CJAS,S(2),90-100

MODELS OF ACCULTURATION COX & FINLEY-NICKELSON

some organizations even these areas of behavior have written expectations which are enforced by management. For example, a recent article on the culture and leadership styles of Northwestern Airlines included the following in a list of written rules and policies of the company: 1. All pilots must have short sideburns, and 2 . Flight attendants must wear high heels and may not wear more than one bracelet (Wall Streef Journal,

Based on the foregoing discussion of previous research on organizational culture and socialization, it is suggested that organizational culture identity structures be conceptualized as follows: Type 1. required conformity on neither pivotal nor peripheral

norms and values. Type 2. required conformity on peripheral but not pivotal

norms. Type 3. required conformity on pivotal but not peripheral

norms. Type 4. required conformity on both pivotal and peripheral

norms. It should be noted that both types 3 and 4 satisfy Weiner's

(1988) definition of "strong" culture in that both have high influence on behavior in core norm areas. Accordingly, we will consider Types 1 and 2 to represent "weak" cultures, and Types 3 and 4 to represent "strong" cultures. However, as will be explained shortly, the fact that organizations with Type 3 cultural identities do not impose conformity pressure in non- core behavioral domains may be a critical distinction for predicting acculturation processes. In the following section, this typology will be used in specifying theoretical propositions about the relationship between organizational culture identity structures and modes of acculturation.

3-30-89).

Organizational culture identity and modes of acculturation. In organizations with weak cultures (identity Types 1 and

2 ) pivotal norms and values of the organization are ill-defined and poorly enforced, and the specific culture of the organization will therefore not be easily discernable. As a result, pressure for conformity on entering members would necessarily be minimized. Under these conditions, we would expect relatively little cultural change of minority culture members entering the organization from backgrounds which are divergent from the majority group. By the same token, majority group members would have little incentive to change to minority group norms since the latter groups are less politically powerful and are often under-represented in the power structure of the organization. Proposition 11: Organizations with weak organization cul-

tures (Type l and Type 2 cultural identity structures) will tend to display a deculturation mode of acculturation.

In contrast to Type 1 and 2 organizations, Types 3 and 4 are characterized by a clearly defined system of norms/values which are rigorously enforced. Since minority culture members are generally underrepresented in the power structure of

the organization, pivotal norms are primarily established by majority group members. Thus, to the extent that people enter these organizations from cultural backgrounds which diverge from the majority, a significant degree of conformity to the dominant culture may be required. However, the amount of adaptation required is less in the Type 3 organization because the conformity pressures are limited to pivotal norms. Proposition 12a: Organizations with Type 3 culture identity

structures, will tend to display a pluralism mode of acculturation.

Proposition 12b: Organizations with Type 4 culture identity structures, will tend to display the assimilation mode of acculturation.

Synthesis of the Factors Throughout the previous section, the 6 factors of Figure 1

were explicated as individual factors favoring the occurrence of one of the four modes of acculturation. We will now summarize the theoretical model by presenting a synthesis of the conditions which favor each mode of acculturation as given in the formal propositions stated earlier. This synthesis is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 SUMMARY OF THEORETICAL PROPOSITIONS Assimilation will be the predominant mode of acculturation when: 1. Culture Identity structures among members of the minority

groups are mono-cultural majority (P 2). 2. The amount of overlap in norm systems between the majority

and minority group is high (P SA). 3. Norms systems between the majority and minority group are

highly complementary (P 6). 4. The knowledge of specific cultural norms of the other group

tends to be high for minorities but low for majorities (P 7). 5 . The degree to which the organization values diversity is low.

(P 10a). 6. The organizational culture identity structure is Type 4 (pres-

sure for conformity is high for both pivotal and peripheral values and norms; P 12b).

Separation will be the predominant mode of acculturation when:

Culture identity structures among members of the minority group are mono-cultural minority, and task interdependence with majority-group members is low (P 4). The amount of overlap in norm systems between the majority and minority group is low (P Sc). Knowledge of specific cultural norms of the other group is low for both minority group members and majority group members (P 8). The organization places a high value on diversity, and task interdependence and integration requirements between cultural groups is low (P lob).

97 RCSA/CJAS,S(2), 90-100


Deculturation will be the predominant mode of acculturation when: 1. Culture identity structures among members of the minority

2. Organizational cultures are weak (i.e.culture identity struc- group are anomic (P 1).

tures are Type 1 or Type 2; P 1 1). Pluralism will be the predominant mode of acculturation when: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5 .

Culture identity structures among members of the minority group are bicultural (P 3) . The amount of overlap in norm systems between the majority and minority groups is moderate (P 5b). Knowledge of specific cultural norms of the other group is high for both majority and minority group members (P 9). The organizational culture places a high value on diversity and task interdependence and coordination requirements among cultural groups are high (P 1Oc). The organizational culture identity structure is Type 3 (high pressure to conform to pivotal values and norms but low for peripheral norms; P 12a).

Summary Proposition Finally, while the contents of Table 1 gives our view of the

conditions under which each of the four modes of acculturation are most likely to occur in organizations, we recognize that the actual mode of acculturation in use in a given organization may differ from the model prescriptions. The specifications of Table 1 are thought to represent the set of conditions which are most favorable to each of the modes of acculturation. There- fore, organizations which adhere to the patterns of Table 1 are expected to have more effective acculturation of divergent cultural groups than organizations which violate them. Proposition 13: Organizations in which the operative accul-

turation mode is aligned with its context as specified in Table 1, will have more effective acculturation of diverse groups than organizations which are not aligned in accordance with Table 1.

Implications for Organizations

This paper has developed a theoretical framework for predicting modes of acculturation for intra-organizational cultural diversity. The proposed model contains 6 factors which are thought to define the conditions which are most favorable to each of the four modes of acculturation. The model has two general implications for management practice. First, as indicated in Proposition 13, organizations are expected to be more effective in managing culturally different personnel if they adopt a mode of acculturation which fits their contextual conditions as specified in Table 1. For example, an organization which attempts to use an assimilation mode of acculturation under conditions where many minority members have bicultural and mono-cultural-minority identity profiles, or where inter-cultural norm systems are dissimilar, would be

less effective than if a pluralism mode were employed. Alter- natively, assimilation might be quite effective where identity structures are mono-cultural majority, and the majority and minority cultures at issue are highly similar.

A second implication is that as workforces become more culturally diverse in the United States and elsewhere, organizations which have traditionally been monocultural will need to shift toward a multicultural environment. A pluralism form of acculturation has been identified as a primary characteristic of such an environment (Cox, 1991; Triandis, 1976). Plural- ism has also been advocated as the appropriate acculturation mode for modem multinational organizations which must build capability to respond to diverse national interests while simultaneously preserving the ability to coordinate and imple- ment certain policies and activities world-wide (Bartlett & Ghosal, 1987).

The model presented here hypothesizes that pluralism will be facilitated by bicultural individual identity structures, moderate to high cultural overlap and cultural complementarity of values, high levels of cross-cultural knowledge and understanding, organizational culture and policies which reinforce the "value" in diversity, and by an organizational culture identity which strongly enforces pivotal values but permits high tolerance for deviation in peripheral behavioral domains (Type 3) . Organizations seeking to create multicultural envi- ronments must therefore take steps to foster these five characteristics. For example, a specific step that might be taken by organizations to promote cross-cutural knowledge is the use of education programs which teach cultural differences among different cultural groups. A second example is that a valuing-diversity culture is fostered by rewarding managers for superior effort on managing diversity and by insisting on minority group representation in key decision-making com- mittees (Cox, 1991). Thus to the extent that the model presented here can be empirically verified, it may assist organizations in identifying what they must do in order to establish pluralism and promote a multicultural organization model.

References

Aldefer, C.P. ( 19x2). Problems of changing white males' behavior and beliefs concerning race relations. In P.S. Goodman & Associates (Eds.), ChunRe rn or;qanr.-arrons (pp. 122-165). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Aldefer, C.P., & Tucker, R.C. (1988). A field experiment on the methodology of studying race relations in organizations. Working paper, Yale University.

Allpon, G.W. (1954). The riafurr of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations.

In P.A. Katz (Ed.), Tou~urds rhe elintination ofrucisni. New York: Pergamon Press. Another magazine aims for Asian-Americans. (1990, May I ) . Wull Sf lref ./our-nal, 1 B. Antal. A.B., & Krebshach-Gnath, C. (1987). Women in management: Unused resources

in the Federal Republic of Germany. Inter-nurional Srudirs <!f Manu,qmrrrrr & 0rgani:urion. 16, 133-151.

Bartlett. C.A. (1986). Building and managing the transnational: The new organizational challenge. In M.E. Porter (Ed.), Coniperirrori in global indrrsn-res (pp 367-40 I ). Boston: H m a r d Business School Press.

Banlett, C.A., & Ghosal, S. (19x7). Managing across borders: New strategic requirements. Sloun MunuRemenr Revieu, 28. 7-17.

Belenky. M.F., Clinchy, B.M.. Goldberger. N.R., & T a l e , J.M. (1986). Wonirn'r wanof knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Bell, E. (1990). The bicultural life experience of career-oriented black women. .lourria/ of Or~miizotiorrul Behuvior; / I , 459-478.

Beny, J.W. (1980). Social and cultural change. In H.C. Triandis & R.W. Brislin (Ed,.). Handhoof of ~ r o s s - c u l t u ~ u l p . ~ ~ i . h o / o ~ ~ . 5 (pp 2 I 1-279). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

98 RCSA/CJAS,8(2), 90-100


Berry, J.W. (1983). Accu~turdtion: A comparative analysis of alternative forms. In R. J. Samuda & S.L. Woods (Eds.), Perspectives in immrgi-ant andminority education (pp. 66-77). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural relations in plural society: Alternatives to segregation and their sociopsycological implications. In N. Miller & M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in comact. New York: Academic.

Berry, J.W. ( 1987). Accultration and psychological adaptation: A conceptual view. In Ethnr<.ps.vchology: Research andpmcticr with imniipnnts. refiigees. naliwp6,ople.r, ethnic ,qroups and sojoiirners. 41-50. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, Benvyn, PA: Swets North American. Inc.

Berry, J.W.. & Annis, R.C. (1988). Ethnic psycholo,qy: Researi.h and practice u,ifh rmmr,qrarrfs. refugees, nariw peoples, erhnic groups and sojournrrs. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, Benvyn, PA: Swets North American, Inc.

Bond, M., & Yang, K. (1982). Ethnic affirmation versus cross-cultural accommodation. Journal of Cross-Ciiltural Psychology. I3 ( 2 ) . 169- 18.5.

Breton, R.. Bumet, J., Hartmann, N., kajiw, W., & Lennards, J. (1975). Research issues on Canadian cultures and ethnic groups: An anlaysis of a conference. Canadian Ret,irM, uf.~ociology and Anthropology. 12. XI-94.

Buono, A.F., & Bowditch, J.L. (1989). The human side of mergers and acqur5itions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Copeland, I.. (1988). Valuing diversity: Making the most of cultural differences at the workplace. Per-sonnel. 65: 52-60.

Cox, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. The Erecutiw, 5 ( 2 ) . 34-47. Cox. T., Lobel, S., & Mcleod, P. (in press). Effects of ethnic diversity on cooperative

versus competitive behavior on a group task. The Academy of Management Journal. Cox, T., & Nkomo, S. (1990). Invisible men and women: A status report on race as a

variable in organization behavior research. Journal of Organization Behavior, 11, 419.43 I .

de Anda, D. (1984). Bicultural socialization: Factors affecting the minority experience. Social Work. 101-107.

Denison, D. (1989). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. Working paper, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Domm. D.R., & Stafford. J.E. ( 1972). Assimilating blacks into the organization. California Management Review: 25,46-5 I .

Dunphy, D. (I 987). Convergence/divergence: A temporal review of the Japanese enterprise. The Academy ofManagement Review. 12,445-459.

Femandez, J.P. ( 198 I). Racism and srrisrn in corpomre life: Changing values in American . business. Lexington, MA: Heath. Femandez-Barillas, H.J., & Momson, T.L. (1984). Cultural affiliation and adjustment

among male Mexican-American college students. Psychological Reports. S5, 855-860.

Flying solo: The autocratic style of Northwest's CEO complicates defense. (1989, March 30). Wall Street Journal, IA.

Foeman, A.K., & Pressley, G. (1987). Ethnic culture and corporate culture: Using black styles in organizations. Communication Quarterly. 35,293-307.

Frideres, J.S. (1989). Multiculturalism and intergroup relations. New York: Greennood Press.

Fullerton, H.N. (1987). Labor force projections: 1986-2000. Monthly Labor Review, September, 19-29.

Gilligan, C. ( 1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Glazer, N., & Moynihan. D.P. (1973). Beyond the melting pot. Cambridge: MIT Press. Gnoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1988). Creation, adoption. and diffwion of innovations by

subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of Inter-national Business Studies, 365-388.

Hampton, D.R., Summer, C.E., & Webber. R.A. (1987). Organizational behavior and the pracfiL.e ($management. Glenview, U Scott-Foreman.

Hazuda, H., Stem, M., & Haffner, S.M. (1988). Acculturation and assimilation among Mexican-Americans: Scales and population-based data. Social Science Quarter/y, 69 (3). 687-706.

Hirschman, C. (1982). Immigrants and minorities: Old questions for new directions in research. International Migration Review. 16,474-490.

Hofstede, G. ( I 980). Cultures consequences: International d!&rence,s in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy o j Managemenr Review, 9, 389-398.

Kallen, H.M. (1924). Culture and democracy in the United States. New York: Boni & Liveright.

Kanter, R.M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82 ( S ) , 965-990.

Kiefer, C. (1974). changing cultures, changing livrs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kitano, H. (1976). Japanese-Americans' The evolutroir qf subculture. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Klein, G.D. (1980). Beyond EEO and affirmative action. Culgornru Management Revleu,:

Lamben. W.E., & Taylor, D.M. (1988). Assimilation versus multiculturalism: The views

Lee, C., & Green, R.T. (1988). Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein behavioral

Malekzadeh, A,, & Nahavandi, A. (1990). Making mergen work by managing cultures.

Massey. D.S., & Denton, N.A. (19x8). Suburbanization and \egregation in U.S.

Massey, D.S.. & Mullan. B.P. (1984). Processes of Hispanic and Black spatial assimilation.

Matsumoto. G., Meredith, G . , & Masuda, M. (1970). Ethnic identification: Honolulu and

McFee, M. (1968). The 150% man, a product of Blackfeet acculturation. American

McGoldrick, M., Garcia-Preto. N., Hines, P.M., &Lee. E. (1989). Wunieri iti fanidrest A

Mcleod, K. A. (1979). Mulriculturalr~m, bilin,qualism nndCanadia~i I ~ S I ~ I U I J O ~ S . Toronto:

Mitroff. I., & Kilman, R. (1984). Corpor-ate tragedies- Prudii(.t tamper-rn,q. .SUbotagr and

Montgomery, G., & Oro,xo, S. (1984). Validation of a measure of acculturation for

Nahavandi, A,, & Malekzadeh, A. (1988). Acculturation in mergers and acquisitions.

Olivares. F. (1987). Women in management in Italy: More than an emerging issue. Equal

Pdcsale, R. (1985). The paradox of corporate culture: Reconciling ourselves to

Padilla, A.M. (1980). Acculturation- Throry. model.\ and some neu findin,qs. Boulder,

Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard

Rdmcharan. S. (1982). Racism: Nonn,hites in Canada. Toronto: Buttenvorths. Ramirez, A. (1971 ). Racism toward Hispanics: The culturally monolithic society. In PA.

Katz & Dalmas Taylor (Eds.), Elimrnating Racism. New York: Plenum Press. Ramirer, M., Cox, B., & Castaneda, A. (1977). The psychodynamics of hrculturalism.

(Study prepared for organizational'research programs. Oftice of Naval Research, Arlington, VA.) Santa Cruz, CA: Systems and evaluations in education.

Renshaw, J.R. (1987). Women in management in the Pacific Islands: Exploring Pacific stereotypes. Into-national Studies of Management & Organimrion. 16. 152- 173.

Sales, A.L., & Mirvis, P.H. (1984). When cultures collide: Issues of acquisition. In J.R. Kimberly & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Managing organi:ational transition (pp. 107.133). Homewood, I L Irwin.

Schein, E.D. (1984). Organizational socialization and the profession of management. In D.A. Kolb, 1.M. Rubin & J.M. McIntyre (Eds.), 0rgani;ationol Psycholop. (pp 7-21). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Schneider, S.C. (1988). National vs. corporate culture: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Mana,qement. 27.23 1-246.

Schwartz,F.N. (1989). Management women and the new facts of life. Harvard Business Reweu', Jan-Feb., 65-76.

Siehl, C., Ledford, G., Silverman, R., & Fay,P. (1988). Preventing culture clashes from blotching a merger. Meqers andilcquisitions, 22.51 -57.

Steinhoff, P.G., & Tanaka. K. (1987). Women managers in Japan. International Studies of Management & Organization, 16, 108-132.

Szapocznik, J., & Kunines. W. (1980). Acculturation, biculturalism and adjustment among Cuban Americans. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Psychological dimensions on the aculturarion process: Theories, models. and some new findings (pp 139-159). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Szapocmik, J., Santisteban. D.. Kurtines. W., Perez-Vidal, A,, & Hervis. 0. (1988). Bicultural effectiveness training: A treatment intervention for enhancing intercultural adjustment in Cuban American families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 6 (4), 317-344.

Triandis, H.C. (1976). The future of pluralism revisited. Journal social Issues. 32,

Valentine, C. ( I 971 ).Deficit, difference and bicultural models of Afro-American behavior. Haimard EducationalRevien. 41, 137-157.

Weiner, Y. (1988). Forms of value systems: A focus on organizational effectiveness and cultural change and maintenance. Academy of Management R m e w : 13,534-545.

Wong-Reiger, D. (19x2). Mismatches in self-identity and the adaptation of Asian students to living in a North American city. In R. Rath, H.S. Asthana, D. Sinha, & J.B.P. Sinha (Eds.), Dive!-siryandunity in cross-culturulp.sycho1ogy (pp. 128- 146). Kanpur, India: Pragya Prakashan Publishers. (1st Indian edition, 1985).

22 (4). 74-81.

of urban Americans. Sociolo,?icul Forum, 3.72-88.

intervention model. Working Paper. University of Texas, Austin, TX.

Journal o f B i i w w s s Strate,q?, 11, 55-57.

metropolitan areas. American Journal of Sociolo,qy, 94,592-626.

American Journal ofSo(.iolo,qy, 89,836473.

Seattle Japanese-Americans. ,lour-nal of Cross-Cirlturul P.\yi.holo,qy. I ( I ). 63-16.

A n t h i - ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ l / i ~ ~ i s t . 70, 1096- I 103.

fi-anieu>ork i n family therapy. New York: Norton.

Guidance Centre, University of Toronto.

other cataphoresis. New York: Praeger.

Mexican-Americans. Hispanic, lournat ofBehai~ioruI Scien<.r.%. h ( 1 ), 53-63.

Academy qfManagenrenr Reweu: 1.7 ( I ), 79-YO.

Opportunities International. 6 ( I ) , 6-10.

socialization. Culifbrnia Management Review 27 ( 2 ) . 26-41.

CO: Westview.

Business Review, May-June, 79-91.

I ~ Y - z o ~ .

99 RCSAI CJAS, 8 (2), 90-100

MODELS OF ACCULTURATlON , COX & FINLEY-NICKELSON

Wong-Rciger, D. ( 19x3). Whifer andNuf iw Itrdrurir in a hiciilfural \ettin,q. Paper presented at the 29th annual meeting ofSouthwc,tern Psychological Association Meeting, San Antonio, TX. (3). 345-362.

Wong-Reiger, D. (1984). Testing a model of emotional and coping responses to problems in adaptation. liir~~r-rrafioiial Journal ofliitt~rculfur-ul Kelufions, 8,153- 184.

Wong-Reiger, D. & Quintana, D. (1987). Comparative acculturation of aoutheast A\ian and Hispanic immigrant\ and sojourners. Journal ig Cro.wCiilfurul Pslr~lioloqv. I K

RCSA/CJAS,B(2),90-100

models of acculturation for intra-organizational cultural diversity

Documents