CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS - National Ingroup Bias in Multicultural Organizations: A Study o

Conclusions

The aim of this research was to explore the ingroup bias of Latin American expatriates working for multicultural organizations. Using qualitative design, the research findings are related to three dimensions that are companies’ strategies, experiences, and determinants of ingroup bias. It was found that Latin American expatriates can have ingroup bias when interacting with outgroups, more so in the United States than Dominican Republic.

Main Findings

Experiences. The first dimension focused on the question of what are the experiences of ingroup bias in a multicultural organization of expatriates from Latin America. In the United States, findings were related to communication in the language, as well as the social/cultural background of the participants. In the case of Dominican Republic, the factor of communication relates to the different expressions and gender differences participants would have. Additionally, expectations of discrimination, relating the Haitian workers who would expect oppression towards them and thus, have a lack of trust to interact with people from Dominican Republic.

According to social identity theory, self-esteem plays an important explanation on why individuals choose people from their ingroup than those from the outgroups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The participants in the United States felt more accepted and understood when interacting with their ingroups as opposed to the outgroups. In this case, the focus on language is the one that is more mentioned; they felt more secured when having a conversation with individuals from Latin America.

In the case of Dominican Republic, participants focused on how others would express themselves depending on which country they would come from. They made remarks on workers coming from Colombia or Venezuela, stating that they talk more loudly than people from Dominican Republic. The difference in this country is how, depending on the gender of the individual, they would be understood or rejected. Female expatriate workers would have a harder time being accepted in the organization than male expatriate workers.

For the second factor in Dominican Republic was the expectation on discrimination.

Coworkers stated that there has never been a positive relationship with Haitians expatriates,

they are not accepted like other immigrants like Colombians or Venezuelans. The largest immigrant population in Dominican Republic comes from Haiti, and still these negative interactions are very much present. The Haitian participant said he would prefer not to interact with individuals from Dominican Republic because he knew it would not have positive outcomes. He would feel safe being around his ingroup (Haitians), where he knew he was accepted and understood. According to social identity theory, being around people from the ingroup would create a higher collective self-esteem, this can explain the strong gatherings distancing from Haitians to other groups.

Strategies. The second dimension answered to the research question related to what are some strategies implemented by managers to facilitate integration in a multicultural organization. For the United States, this focuses on the implementation of employee resource Groups for a promotion of inclusion and diversity. Furthermore, in the Dominican Republic, strategies were related to organizational culture focusing on creating a culture so all employees would feel in one whole group. And no strategies, meaning that the companies had no current program or strategy in relation to integration.

ERGs were implemented in the three organizations that took part in this study and all of the participants took part in the Latin-American ERGs in their respective organizations. The aim of these ERGs is to promote a sense of inclusion and diversity in the workplace.

Participants would say they had positive experiences to these groups because they were able to find individuals with similar identities.

In Dominican Republic, however, there is a lack of strategies implemented. As mentioned in chapter 2, managers in Latin America have a low level of global competition to support companies’ diversity and inclusion. This is something unexpected because they are part in multicultural organizations. This is why, not only organizations should be able to implement strategies related to inclusion, but also universities should prepare students to become interculturally competent in a global market.

Success factors of organizational level. The third dimension answered the research question about the determinants of national ingroup bias in a multicultural organization. For the United States, the findings were in relation to how the ERGs are implemented, even though this strategy had favorable evaluations from participants, the animosity was towards the implementation and communication of said strategies. Participants said they were comfortable in the Latin-American ERG; they would normally only interact with people from this group

and not join any other ERG like African American or South East Asia. According to social identity theory, individuals would feel safer and have a high self-esteem when being surrounded with individuals from their ingroup and participants for this study would agree that they would feel more secure in the Latin-American group. Given that they were so secured and comfortable in this group, they would not think it was necessary to explore other cultures or other groups; this is what other participants stated was a negative aspect of the ERGs. When there was not enough communication regarding the availability of being a part of a different ERG, employees would only be a part of the group they share identities with, and isolate from other groups and thus, creating ingroup bias. As mentioned in chapter 4, recruiting individuals who do not share the identities of the ERGs could be a way to decrease the isolation of these groups. Bringing people that are not from Latin America to the Latin American ERG to be involved and share ideas and learn from other groups.

For Dominican Republic, the main finding was the lack of strategies. Either managers believed the less diversity the better, other did not think it was necessary for their organization even though they would mention the differences and frictions between employees within the organization. Participants for this study, agreed that there was ingroup bias present in their organizations, however, they did not think it was necessary to implement strategies for the promotion of diversity and inclusion. As stated before, even though Latin-America has become more diverse, there is still a lack of competence in the area of diversity and inclusion.

Implications

Organizations around the world are becoming more diverse than ever before thanks to globalization. But the bias between groups within an organization is a difficulty that many managers have to deal with. This research is able to give suggestions to different readers.

As it pertains to theoretical implications, this research focused on the study of Latin American expatriates, and their experiences of ingroup bias towards others. The study’s center of attention was with ingroup bias pertaining to nationality or region (Latin America), which is a level of ingroup bias that does not have many previous research. Additionally, this study focused on social identity theory and how it can be used to understand ingroup bias in multicultural organizations. Also, the use of SIT to study the impact different training programs could have in the future of an organization.

For companies that want to promote inclusion and diversity, they should focus on hiring managers with multicultural competency, have programs that target inclusion. ERGs are programs that could lead to benefits to the organization and creating a sense of belonging to individuals with different identities. However, companies should focus on implementing these programs in a way that could lead to group inclusion and not group isolation that could lead to ingroup bias. Companies should also focus on the programs within the company, not just implementing them for an outside image.

In relation to managers from multicultural companies, this can help them analyze their own strategies implemented or not in their organizations. Whether or not the strategies they are implementing are in fact promoting integration and inclusion. And also analyzing the possible future implementation of programs to promote inclusion. Managers need to be aware of the diversity in their organization, and have multicultural competence. The idea of inclusion is about getting employees together and understanding each other’s differences, learning from each other; this can be an advantage for the company. According to participants’ view of diversity and their experiences, diversity helps the organization grow since sharing and having different ideas and accepting them can help achieve better business results in the organization.

The findings of this research resonate with the theory and literature reviewed in chapter II. Experiences from the participants related to Social Identity theory, the sense of belonging, and the feelings of being accepted by the ingroup they share identities with. Feelings of acceptance when communicating to individuals from ingroups as opposed to outgroups.

Suggestions can also be important to workers of multicultural companies around the world.

Different levels of communication were found, that create barriers between groups or create ingroup bias. Workers should reflect on their own experiences and actions towards individuals of different groups or social identities.

Limitations

Although this study counted with triangulation; literature review, Latin American expatriates’ interviews, and managers and coworkers’ interviews, it still had some limitations discussed below.

The first limitation was the inability to have observation. All participants as well as the organizations selected for the research were in different locations than the researcher, which

did not make possible the observation and collection of data through of participants’

interactions. The addition of observation would have given the researcher more data to analyze.

The second limitation had to do with the participants. In the Dominican Republic there was a total of three expatriates with the rest of the participants being coworkers or managers.

As it relates to gender, all of the experiences shown in this study were from coworkers, and not enough information related to this topic from expatriates. In United States there was a total of two coworkers with the rest being expatriates and managers. Having a more balance quantity of participants from expatriates and coworkers would give more information for this study.

Suggestions for Future Study

For future researchers that are interested in multicultural working environments, some suggestions are given. In relation to the Dominican Republic, more research in relation to the causes of the lack of strategies of inclusion in the companies. As well as in relation to the experiences of Haitians in companies of Dominican Republic since they are the biggest population of immigrants. A better understanding about this issue and its repercussions in companies in the Dominican Republic could assist in the lack of trust that Haitian people have towards people from Dominican Republic.

In relation to ERGs, companies and managers should focus on implementing strategies that would target cultural inclusion. As it was found in this study, some strategies like ERGs focus on cultural inclusion, however, if these strategies are not well implemented, they could be a source to ingroup bias and isolation. It is suggested for future studies to explore the best ways to promote inclusion through these programs. How they are implemented and what are some limitations of these strategies that are being applied rapidly throughout the United States and other countries.

This research promotes the need for inclusion and integration programs to decrease ingroup bias in companies, so it suggests more research about different programs and strategies companies could implement. Although there is not enough research in this area of ERGs this research is also promoted the future research in relation of ERGs with SIT. Lastly, another suggestion is to compare the opinions and experiences of participants depending on how long they have lived in a country as expatriates, and gender and age differences.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. (1983). Cross-cultural management: Issues to be faced. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1-2), 7-45. doi:10.1080/00208825.1983.11656357 Aglioti, S.M., Bufalari, I., Panasiti, M. S., Porciello, G., & Schepisi, M. (2019). Left threatened

by right: Political intergroup bias in the contemporary italian context. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(26), 1-18.

Ahmed, A. M. (2007). Group identity, social distance and intergroup bias. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 324-337.

Ahmed, S. (2007) The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(2), 235-256.

Alvarez, C. L., Hurtado, S., & Johnson-Ahorlu, R. N. (2013). Undermining the master plan:

California divestment in higher education & student degree progress. Journal of College Admission, Winter, 22-35.

Amodio, D. M., Devine, P. G., Harmon-Jones, E., Plant, E. A., & Vance S. L. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 835-848.

doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.5.835

Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R. N. (1997). Current issues and future challenges in expatriate management. In Zeynep A (Ed.), Expatriate Management: Theory and Research, 245-270. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Balliet, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Wu, J. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556-1581.

Balliet, D., Liu, J., Romano, A., & Yamagishi, T. (2017). Parochial trust and cooperation across 17 societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), 12702-12707.

Barabas, A. M. (2014). Multiculturalismo, pluralismo cultural y interculturalidad en el contexto de América Latina: la presencia de los pueblos originarios [Multiculturalism, Cultural Pluralism and Interculturalism in the context of Latin America: the presence of Indigenous Peoples]. Revista de Sociología, 14.

Ben-Ami, Y., Klar, Y., & Schori-Eyal, Noa. (2016). Perpetual ingroup victimhood as a distorted lens: Effects on attribution and categorization. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 47(2), 180-194.

Ben-Ner, A., McCall, B. P., Stephane, M., & Wang, H. (2009). Identity and in-group/out-group differentiation in work and giving behaviors: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72, 153-170. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2009.05.007 Bettencourt, B. A., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., & Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and

in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 520-542.

doi:10.1037//0033-2909.127.4.520

Black, J. S., & Morrison, A. (1999) Global explorers: The next generation of leaders. New York: Routledge.

Blanco, M., Cruz, J., & Roma, J. (2013). Explorando las Competencias Globales de los Administradores Estadounidenses y Mexicanos Trabajando en un Ambiente Multicultural en los Estados Unidos [Exploring the Global Competencies of US and Mexican Administrators Working in a Multicultural Environment in the United States].

XVII Congreso Internacional de Contaduria y Administracion e Informatica. AFECA, 18.

Bowen, D. E., Javidan, M., & Teagarden, M. B. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring global mindset. Advances in Global Leadership, 6, 13-39.

Bremer, D. (2008). Engineering the world. Online Journal for Global Engineering Education, 3(2), 2.

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429-444. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126

Brown, D., Iacono, V. L., & Symonds, P. (2016). Skype as a tool for qualitative research.

Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 103-117.

Brown, R., Mullen, B., & Smith C. (1992). lngroup bias as a function of salience. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 103-122.

Canales, A., Vargas, P., & Montiel, I. Migración y salud en zonas fronterizas: Haití y República Dominicana. [Migration and Health in Border Areas: Haiti and the Dominican Republic]. Serie Población y Desarrollo, 1(82), 3-81.

Carter-Thuillier, B., & Moreno, A. (2017). Globalización económica, postmodernidad y sistema educativo: contradicciones y alternativas desde una Educación Física crítica [Economic globalization, postmodernism, and educational system: Contradictions and alternatives from a critical physical education perspective]. Estudios Pedagógicos, 43(3), 103-117.

Cheon, B. K., Livingston, R. W., Hong, Y., & Chiao, J. Y. (2014). Gene environment interaction on intergroup bias: The role of 5-HTTLPR and perceived outgroup threat.

SCAN, 9, 1268-1275. doi:10.1093/scan/nst111

Cho, S., Ahraemi, K., & Mor-Barak, M. (2017). Does diversity matter? Exploring workforce diversity, diversity management, and organizational performance in social enterprises.

Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 1-12.

Christakis, N., Fu, F., Nowak, M., Rand, D., Tarnita, C. E., & Wang, L. (2012). Evolution of in-group favoritism. Scientific Reports, 2(460), 1-6. doi: 10.1038/srep00460

Ciftci, O., Mertan, B., & Rustemli, A. (2000). In-group favoritism among native and immigrant turkish cypriots: Trait evaluations of in-group and out-group targets. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(1), 26-34. doi:10.1080/00224540009600443

Cilak, A., Golec, A., & Wesolowska, E. (2010). Political conservatism, need for cognitive closure, and intergroup hostility. Political Psychology, 31(4), 521-541.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00767.x

Cook, R. E., Field, R. D., Martin, C. L., Nielson, M. G., & Xiao, S. X. (2018).Will They Listen to Me? An Examination of In-Group Gender Bias in Children’s Communication Beliefs. Sex Roles, 80, 172-185. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0924-6

Cox, T. (1991). The Multicultural Organization. The Excecutive, 5(2), 34-47.

Crocker , J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 60-67. doi:O022-3514/9O/$0O.75

De Dreu, C. K. W., Greer, L. L., Handgraaf, M. J. J., Shalvi, S., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2010).

Oxytocin Promotes Human Ethnocentrism. PNAS, 108(4), 1262-1266. Retrieved from www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1015316108

De Gilder, D., Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating Individuals and Groups at Work: A Social Identity Perspective on Leadership and Group Performance. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 459- 478. Retrieved from: equality? Academy of Management Conference, 41(2), 219-240.

Dorrough, A. R., Fiedler, S., Glöckner, A., & Hellman, D. M. (2018). Cross-national in-group favoritism in prosocial behavior: Evidence from Latin and North America. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(1), 42-60.

Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. B., Tyler, R. B., & Perdue, C. W. (1990). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 5(3), 475-186. doi:0O22-3514/9O/$O0.75

Efferson, C., Fehr, E., & Lalive, R. (2008). The coevolution of cultural groups and ingroup favoritism. Science, 321, 1844- 1849. doi:10.1126/science.1155805

Eshghi, G. (1985). Nationality Bias and Performance Evaluation in Multinational Corporations. Academy of Management, 93-97. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1985.4978719

Finkle, C., Johnson, M. K., LaBouff, J. P., & Rowatt, W. C. (2012).Differences in attitudes toward outgroups in religious and nonreligious contexts in a multinational sample: A situational context priming study. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22, 1-9. doi:10.1080/10508619.2012.634778

Friedman, R. A., & Craig, K. M. (2004). Predicting joining and participating in minority employee network groups. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 43(4), 793-816.

Gaertner, S. L., Mania, E. W., & Riek, B. M. (2006). Intergroupthreat and outgroup attitudes:

A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353.

Giles, H., & Byrnes, J. (1982). An intergroup approach to second language acquisition.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3(1), 17-41.

Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1981) The Role of Language in Ethnic Group Relations. in J.C.

Turner and H. Giles (eds) Intergroup Behavior, 199–243. Oxford: Blackwell.

Giles, H., Bourhis, R.Y., & Taylor, D.M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. in H. Giles (ed.) Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, 307-48.

London: Academic Press.

Glover, D., Pallais, A., & Pariente W. (2017). Discrimination as a aelf-Fulfilling prophecy:

Evidence from french grocery stores. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(3), 1219-1260. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx006

Godbey, G., & Turlington, B. (2002). A collaborative approach to international programs. New Directions for Higher Education, 89 - 98.

Green, N. (2009). Expatriation, expatriates, and expats: The american transformation of concept. American Historical Review, 114(2), 307-319.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage Publications, Inc.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2003). Cross-cultural and intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Guerin, B. (1999). Children’s intergroup attribution bias for liked and disliked peers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(5), 583-589. doi:10.1080/00224549909598418 Gutal, S. (2007). Globalisation. Development in Practice, 17, 523-531.

doi:10.1080/09614520701469492

Habermas, J. (1994). Struggles for recognition in the democratic constitutional state in gutmann, A. (ed) Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Han, S., Li, B., Luo, S., Ma, Y., Rao, Y., & Zhang, W. (2015). Oxytocin receptor gene and racial ingroup bias in empathy-related brain activity. NeuroImage, 110, 22-31.

Hewlett, S. A., Rashid, R., & Sherbin, L. (2015). Disrupt bias drive value. A new path toward diverse, engaged, and fulfilled talent. New York, NY: Rare Birds Books.

Heyman, M. (2017). Management and multiculturalism in companies. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Centria University of Applied Sciences, Kokkola.

Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self‐categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7-30.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D, J. (200). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140.

Huddy, L., Levy, J., & Sears, D. (2013). The oxford handbook of political psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Jackson, B. W. (2014). Theory and practice of multicultural organization development. In B.

Jones & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL Handbook of Organization Development and Change: Principles,Practices, and Perspectives (175-172). San Francisco, CA: NTL Institute.

Johnson, M. K., LaBouff, J. P., & Rowatt, W. C. (2012). Religiosity and prejudice revisited:

In-group favoritism, out-group derogation, or both? American Psychological Association, 4(2), 154-158. doi:10.1037/a0025107

Judge, T. A., & Robbins, S. P. (2019). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, N.J:

在文檔中 National Ingroup Bias in Multicultural Organizations: A Study of Latin-American Expatriates (頁 60-82)