An understanding of one’s own self as multicultural and of the value of holding a more complex view of one’s subidentities can also foster increased awareness and lead to more tolerant and constructive intergroup interactions (Roccas and Brewer, 2002). Higher levels of social identity complexity, or the way in which we see ourselves with regard to our multiple subgroup identities (Puerto Rican, African, female, PhD) has been found to predict positive out-group affect, increased out-group tolerance, less negative out-group bias, and reduced positive in-group bias (Brewer and Pierce, 2005; Miller, Brewer, and Arbuckle, 2009; Roccas and Brewer, 2002). For instance, one study in Northern Ireland examining ethnic and religious identity representations found that holding more complex, integrated identities predicted more favorable out-group attitudes than lower levels of identity complexity where distinction between the prototypes of one’s ethnic and religious in-groups was less nuanced (Schmid, Hewstone, Tausch, Cairns, and Hughes, 2009).
Also vital for multicultural awareness is knowing one’s own standing in relation to privilege, oppression, and power structures (Deutsch, 2006; McInsosh, 2001). A report published by Catalyst, a nonprofit specializing in diversity and inclusion, described the impact of an initiative aimed at enhancing such awareness with white male managers (Prime, Foust-Cummings, Salib, and Moss-Racusin, 2012). Activities focused on bolstering specific diversity leadership competencies and increasing self-awareness by sharing personal experiences as a vehicle for questioning beliefs and assumptions. As a result of the program, awareness of white male privilege increased, and participants reported greater facility with the intergroup competency behaviors proposed by Ramsey and Latting (2005), including critical thinking about social groups and hierarchies, inquiring across difference, empathic listening, and addressing emotionally charged conflicts related to difference.
Organizational Level.
Institutional awareness starts with a holistic understanding of the various cultural groups comprising internal and external stakeholders and their concomitant assumptions, norms, values, and expectations (Sue, 2008). This understanding must be viewed in light of the organization’s industrial and national context. It can be fostered through discussions of how privilege, oppression, and power structures within the organization and society differentially affect access to resources and outcomes for different stakeholder groups and members. For instance, hierarchical structures and hegemonic processes often result in differential outcomes that fall along cultural lines, benefiting high-status groups and disadvantaging low-status groups (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). The systematic collection and presentation of data on such differential group processes and outcomes can help to keep these discrepancies salient in organizations.
It is also important to unearth and acknowledge the underlying assumptions and values of the organization’s culture and consider how they interact with various diversity dimensions. In monocultural organizations, homogeneity is typically prized and emphasized, and conflict is seen as needing to be suppressed, resulting in favored conflict management strategies of distributive bargaining, coercion, and negotiation (Jackson and Holvino, 1988). In more multicultural organizations, conflict is viewed as a natural and inevitable process requiring management skills of action learning, consensus building, and other forms of collaborative problem solving (Jackson and Holvino, 1988).
The need for heightened self and organizational awareness in situations of multicultural conflict emphasizes the importance of reflecting on the following questions: In what cultural context is this occurring? What aspects of my identity are relevant in this situation? How is this (or are these) relevant identity dimension affecting my experience? What aspects of the other’s identity are relevant in this situation, and how might these relevant identity dimensions be affecting the other’s behavior and experience? What is the history or relationship between these two cultural groups? Who has more power or privilege in this situation? What assumptions am I making about the other and what assumptions may the other be making about me?
Accuracy
This refers to accuracy in reading situations, valuing data and verification, and not giving in to preconceived theories, beliefs, and stereotypes regarding multicultural dynamics and conflict.
Individual Level.
Beyond awareness, individuals need to become as accurate as possible in the assessment of the conflict situations they face. In fact accuracy motives have been found to moderate an individual’s more defensive motives by moving them into more systematic forms of information processing (Chaiken, Giner-Sorolla, and Chen, 1996). This requires careful observation and the drawing of conclusions that are more data driven (based on direct observations, facts, trends and figures) and less theory driven (e.g., based on cultural assumptions and stereotypes). Knowledge of common cultural stereotypes is critical here, as such information has been found to mitigate the use of stereotypical assumptions in discriminatory behavior (Devine, 1989). To increase accuracy, Osland and Bird (2000) suggest an intentional and iterative sense-making approach whereby the individual acts “like a scientist who holds conscious stereotypes and hypotheses in order to test them” (p. 75). A critically reflective mind-set where one also systematically interrogates assumptions and structures affecting power can help to bring about assessments based on a more objective accounting of conflict situations, cultural influences, and concomitant power dynamics (Reynolds, 1998).
Organizational Level.
Multicultural accuracy in conflict at this level requires data-based approaches to acquiring knowledge at preconflict, present, and postconflict stages. Preconflict, it is critical that organizations collect baseline data regarding the hiring, retention, treatment, and perceptions of members of different cultural and ethnic groups. This information can provide critical information to the organization on trends in the climate of discrimination, multiculturalism, and diversity and therefore provide a sense of context when multicultural conflicts arise. During a conflict, organizations must be vigilant in analyzing the situation by gathering data from all relevant parties, being careful not to exclude or mute minority voices. Analysis of the conflict and examination of multicultural data, themes, and patterns should foster more accurate assessment. Postconflict, action should be taken to evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the conflict processes and outcomes to ensure the greater effectiveness and fairness of processes, procedures, and policies. In taking these measures, organizations can identify strengths to leverage, weaknesses to target, opportunities to nurture, and threats to suppress that will foster not only greater accuracy but awareness, adaptability, and accountability in managing multicultural conflicts.
The need for accuracy raises several questions including these: What actual evidence do I have to support the conclusions I have made? What does the person’s nonverbal behavior tell me? What am I not seeing? What impact does the historical treatment of different groups in this context have on these events?
Adaptivity
Adaptivity refers to responding to multicultural conflict in a manner that fits the demands of the situation.
Individual Level.
While the first two A’s of I-AM are crucial for helping to make sense of a conflict situation, this third component helps individuals to respond in multiculturally appropriate ways (see Coleman et al., 2012). Adaptivity requires disputants to be oriented to the demands of situations and capable of gleaning what is relevant and irrelevant to the conflict. Thus, higher degrees of cultural intelligence (Earley and Ang, 2003) and social perceptiveness or the capacity to be aware of and sensitive to the differing needs, goals, and demands of others (Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny, 1991) is core to adaptivity. Kang and Shaver (2004) found that higher emotional complexity (the degree to which an individual has a broad range of emotional experiences, and the capacity to make subtle distinctions within emotion categories) leads individuals to be more oriented to and empathetic with the feelings of others and thus have greater degrees of interpersonal adaptability
. In addition, higher self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974), or the tendency for people to monitor themselves in social situations and behave in a manner that is responsive to social cues and situational context, also plays a role in conflict adaptation.
Even when situations are perceived accurately, an adaptive individual must also be able to respond in ways that fit the situation. Thus, an enhanced behavioral skill set is needed in order to respond fittingly. Zaccaro et al. (1991) found that behavioral flexibility, defined as the ability and willingness to respond in significantly different ways to correspondingly different situational requirements, is a critical component of adaptive leadership. Behaviorally, an individual needs to possess a range of conflict management responses that he or she can employ appropriately given the expectations of the other party and broader environmental demands. In order to do so authentically and successfully, one must be learning agile, that is, have the “willingness and ability to learn new competencies in order to perform under first-time, tough, or different conditions” (Lombardo and Eichinger, 2000, p. 323).
Leaders also play an important role in multicultural conflict processes in organizations. Monocultural leaders tend to approach the management of conflict in multicultural organizations in a manner that fails to de-escalate tensions, neglects attention to dominant power structures, and ignores the importance of reducing stereotypical thinking and behavior (Canen and Canen, 2008). This type of leadership behavior has been linked to bullying, silencing, low morale, a divisive climate, and decreased organizational performance (Canen and Canen, 2008). Multicultural leaders are more nimble. They read situations more carefully, consider their short- and longer-term objectives, and then employ a variety of strategies in order to increase the probabilities that their agenda will succeed. They know the difference between a temporary dispute and a long-term war. They know when to stay the course and when to change strategies. They recognize that good leadership requires both a sense of stability, vision, and purpose and the capacity to respond effectively to important changes in the landscape.
Organizational Level.
Organizations can benefit from a culture of openness to different experiences and learning at the institutional level. In response to multicultural conflicts, organizations should have at their disposal a range of conflict management strategies and should be ready to deploy any number of them. Cox (1993) identified five sources of conflict in multicultural organizations—competitive goals, resources, cultural differences, power discrepancies, and identity negation—and suggested that diversity in conflict management strategies is essential for intervening in these tensions. Specifically, in addressing power-related conflicts, he recommended changing the organizational context (e.g., restructuring), using collaborative and distributive problem solving, redefining organizational processes and policies, removing personnel who act as barriers to equality, making hierarchical appeals, and organizing structured interactions between parties.
With respect to structured interaction, intergroup dialogue is a strategy commonly employed to facilitate the reduction of multicultural conflict within an organization. Engagement in dialogue across difference can increase self-awareness of cultural identity and centrality (Nagda and Zúñiga, 2003). In a review article, Dessel and Rogge (2008) synthesized the outcomes related to intergroup dialogue interventions, which included increased perspective taking, complex thinking about difference, appreciation for power systems, self-efficacy for managing conflict, positive relationships, and reduced stereotyping and bias.
Adaptivity heightens the importance of the following issues: What does this specific cultural situation call for? What are my behavioral and organizational options here? If I employ these options, will I achieve my goals? What behavioral alternatives can I employ if my intent does not match the impact of my deescalation tactics?
Accountability
Accountability to self, other, and community is accomplished through eliciting, institutionalizing, and reading feedback and responding with appropriate reforms.
Individual Level.
To be accountable is to take and own responsibility for multiculturally appropriate processes and outcomes in conflict. This requires a continuous process of critical self-reflection on the part of individuals as they interact with members of other groups (Reynolds, 1998). Of paramount concern is the balancing and achievement of procedural, distributive, and interactional fairness in conflict (see chapter 1 in this Handbook). Even when both parties cannot get their needs met, individuals must demonstrate respect for the culture and identity of the other. Maintaining a sense of integrity and follow-through is essential to preserving identity.
Organizational Level.
Most organizations profess to value accountability with regard to diversity but fail to establish measures to ensure it; thus, it is a developmental opportunity for many (Sue, 2008). Formalizing multicultural accountability requires prioritizing and institutionalizing procedural, distributive, and interactional forms of justice. Organizations should establish a systematic process for conducting periodic institutional research and evaluative studies that can track trends in the organizational climate with respect to discrimination and diversity. This should entail examining the overall climate with respect to race, culture, and diversity (RCD), with particular attention to inclusiveness and antidiscrimination patterns over time. In addition, they should evaluate and monitor the perceived quality of existing RCD initiatives in the eyes of key constituent groups. Questions would aim to gather information on respondent perceptions of discrimination and exclusion; support, inclusion, and opportunity; and impact of existing RCD initiatives in improving the organization’s climate with respect to RCD.
Other questions guiding the evaluation process could focus on the impact of programs such as affirmative action on recruitment and retention of various categories of employees. Self-report data should be complemented with hard quantitative data on the frequencies and types of grievances recorded by year and constituent group, with similar data on recruitment, tenure, promotion, and self-motivated employee departures. Specific trends that could be monitored are frequency of grievances by year, types of incidents by year, frequency of incident by type and constituent category, and cross-tabulations of frequency and type of incidents by Title Nine categories (nationality, race-ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, income-social class).
Ultimately the timely dissemination of reports, along with use of the results and findings for making organizational improvements, is key to bringing about transformative institutional change. Collectively and over time, the evaluations may yield generalizable principles and suggest models that enhance our understanding of factors that contribute to and promote organizational health with respect to RCD. Any new initiatives implemented following presentation of RCD climate reports should themselves be subjected to evaluative inquiry in forthcoming studies.
CASE STUDY: MULTICULTURALISM AND THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is an iconic American institution currently in the throes of an intense multicultural conflict. With its mission to prepare “young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes,” the organization has been struggling with the boundaries of its own ethics and morals. The BSA’s ban on gay membership has placed issues of civil rights, fairness, values, religion, respect, exclusion and inclusion, and dignity at the forefront of a contentious political and personal issue. Coming under increasing fire for not allowing openly gay members to participate, this situation reflects the national broadening of equal rights and antidiscrimination policies to include the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) community. What values-based organizations like the BSA must reflect on during multicultural expansions and transitions is how the traditional translation of their values excludes and marginalizes certain groups.
Building on the current BSA conflict, we analyze the situation through the lens of I-AM to highlight its practical implications at t
he organizational level. Our focus is on the position of the BSA and how in this unfolding story, the components of I-AM have and have not been applied. This is not to suggest that those in opposition to the BSA’s handling of LGBTQ issues in scouting are exempt from the principles of I-AM in this situation. It is our contention, however, that because the BSA holds a position of dominant power with regard to decision-making capacity to change or not change its policies, the use of I-AM will have the greatest impact when undertaken by the higher-power group.
Founded in 1910, the BSA has served more than 114 million youth in its 103-year history with the help of more than 33 million volunteers (BSA, 2010). In three main programs—Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Venturing—the BSA uses experiential learning in the form of outdoor adventure to teach youth knowledge and skills. The values impressed on its members include doing one’s best to fulfill duty in serving God and country, help others, and keep oneself “morally straight” (BSA, 1911). The touted benefits of BSA involvement include academic enhancement, confidence, ethical development, leadership skills, and citizenship skills (BSA, 2001).
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed) Page 94