CHAPTER SIX

WHERE ARE YOU FROM—REALLY?

Observable Differences and Developing a Multicultural Mind

Where are you from? seems like a simple question. And, for many people with physical characteristics that are typical of a particular geography, it is! But multiculturals often have racial or ethnic backgrounds that don’t match their cultural identity.¹ They look “different,” and this confuses people. They are difficult to categorize! The following comments from people of mixed race are typical:

Keko, a mixed race student, had grown weary of her middle school classmates asking her how much Japanese ancestry she had. So when asked, she had systematically responded, “one-third.” It amused her that her less mathematically sophisticated classmates often accepted this answer without question. Rarely did they pick up on the fact that you can be one-half Japanese or one-fourth, but not one-third.²

Chela, with Scottish, Jamaican, and East Indian heritage, says, “Being biracial isn’t hard because we are confused about our racial identity. It’s hard because everyone else is confused. The problem isn’t us—it’s everyone else.”³

Stefanie, an American with German and Chinese ancestry, says, “I hate the obsession people have with what they see as different or exotic. It’s so superficial. It gets to me, and I wonder if other mixed people feel that way. I mean, you like the attention yet you don’t. It’s just another reminder that I’m not like them. . . . When I was younger I thought it was so cool when people called me ‘exotic.’ But now I really hate that. It’s totally demeaning.”⁴

Kaylin, a mixed raced student, writes, “Let me explain. I am not white, or in more truthful terms, I am not fully white. I am mixed. My dad was born in Nigeria, while my mother spent the first couple of years of her life in Nova Scotia. Being of any mixed race comes with annoyances. I have lost count of times people have asked me what I am. I suppress the urge to reply, ‘I’m human, I think of the female variety, unless I’ve been mistaken all these years.’ And I still have to respond to the typecasting created by my darkened skin. I once had a friend ask me why I didn’t act more black. As though having darker skin meant I was predestined to behave in a certain way. I am not black, nor am I white. I am Canadian! People who are half European and half Canadian are never asked the question, ‘What are you?’ So why in a culture where racial discrimination is so minimal do visible minorities get asked this question? Why is being Canadian not enough of an explanation?”⁵

We live in a complex world. Our surroundings send us much more information than our brains can process.⁶ In order to cope with all this information, we have learned to simplify our world by chunking information into a manageable number of categories. The human mind has developed in a way that helps us organize and process information more efficiently. In our minds are structures consisting of categories (called schemas) that develop slowly over time through repeated experiences with objects, people, and situations. These categories are like the pigeonholes into which mail in a non-automated post office is sorted. Each hole might be labeled with the last three digits of a postal code. As letters are sorted, the postal worker does not have to read the name or street address on the letter or even look at the city of the address. The sorter need only glance at the last three digits of the code, and the letter can be sorted into the appropriate pigeonhole. The information processing demands on the sorter are greatly reduced, and the letters can be sorted more quickly.⁷

We have these categories or schemas for a wide variety of things. For example, fish describes a category that contains salmon but does not perfectly describe a salmon, just as the last three digits of the postal code do not perfectly describe the address of the recipient of a letter. Once we form a category, we use it to understand information that we receive in the future. For example, our knowledge of the category fish is used to understand all kinds of fish (swims, has gills, fins, scales, etc.). While useful, this broad category does not distinguish between a salmon and a halibut or any other kind of fish. Our experience influences how elaborate the category is. To people in a fishing community, the idea of a “fish” will be associated with a complex set of mental pictures of different kinds of fish and fishing situations, while the city dweller may see only the fillet that appeared on his/her dinner plate last evening.

In managing organizations we categorize people in the same way. We think of June as a secretary, Bob as a software engineer, Yuan as Chinese, or Amir as Persian. While categorizing people in this way is a normal part of how our brains deal with information overload, it has numerous consequences, not all of which are good. Yuan may look Chinese, which causes our brains to automatically put her in that category. But having Chinese physical characteristics may have little if anything to do with who Yuan is—her self-concept. It is important that we understand the tendency that we all have to categorize based on observable differences. A number of factors influence this process:

♦ First, race and gender seem to be universal indicators of a category.

♦ Second, the extent to which a category stands out has an influence. For example, Anglo-Europeans are obvious in rural Japan.

♦ Third, the extent to which a person has characteristics that are typical of the group influences categorization. An atypical person such as a brown-haired, dark-skinned Scandinavian would be more difficult for our brains to deal with.

♦ Fourth, deviations from normal speech in terms of accent, syntax, or grammar influence categorization. A southern US accent is unmistakable to native English speakers and results in immediate categorization.

♦ Finally, a history of interactions with another group makes it easier for us to categorize them. Our attention is heightened with groups with which we have had a history of conflict.⁸

Stereotypes

Categorizing people influences our attitudes and expectations of them. These stereotypes are based on the limited information we have about a category, as Eric Liu’s story shows:

In the 1980s, when Asian Americans became the country’s favorite non-white folk—the “model minority”—Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes asked: “Why are Asian Americans doing so exceptionally well in school? They must be doing something right. Let’s bottle it,” . . . the so-called Asian Way.

The Asian Way holds that Asians, unlike non-Asians, prefer order to freedom; that Asians can suffer hardship better than non-Asians; that Asians are more disciplined and virtuous than non-Asians. All of which explains why Asians the world over seem to be doing so exceptionally well.⁹

We can hold intense stereotypes about another culture without any experience with people from that culture.¹⁰ For example, we may expect Americans to be loud and Japanese to be polite without ever having met an American or a Japanese person. There is even a sort of hierarchy of national stereotypes in which some national cultures have higher status because of economic dominance or other desirable characteristics. For example, nationals of less developed countries are often held in lower esteem than people from developed countries such as the United States or Canada.¹¹ The problem is that once we form a stereotype about a group of people, we apply the stereotype to the same degree to each individual in the category. We expect all Japanese to be polite and all Americans to be loud. And we will hold on to this expectation in spite of new and contradictory information. To continue with the Japanese example, we might expect Japanese business people to be formal. But when confronted with a Japanese businessperson who exhibits Western informal behavior, we discount that individual as being not typical and maintain our stereotype of Japanese as formal. Cultural stereotypes often overlap with gender, as the appropriate roles for women and men to play in societies vary. Amiee Chan’s experience highlights this. With 15 years’ experience in executive management and R&D, Amiee Chan (president and CEO of the satellite communications company Norsat) brings a rare blend of technical and corporate strength to her job. Her strategic vision has resulted in consistent revenue growth during her tenure. In commenting on being named one of Canada’s 100 most powerful women (for the third time), she said, “I’ve experienced culturally embedded micro-inequalities as a female leader. On a business trip to Korea, I travelled with a male colleague and everyone assumed he was the CEO and I was his executive assistant. On another occasion, a business partner asked if my father owned Norsat. These situations are frustrating, but it helps to understand that, most of the time, this comes from a lack of awareness.”¹²

Stereotypes have another effect that organizations need to be aware of. Since they are based on limited information about members of another culture, they result in less accurate evaluations of that culture. New information about a group for which we hold only a stereotype is evaluated more extremely (more negatively if negative and more positively if positive). The richer our understanding of other cultural groups, the more accurate we are in our evaluations. Because multiculturals have a rich and complex understanding of both or all of their cultures, their ability to detect, process, and organize information about those groups is enhanced.¹³ In one of the earliest studies to test the effect of stereotypic expectations on evaluations, Patricia Linville and Edward Jones conducted a series of experiments based on the assumption that people have less stereotypic (more complex) mental pictures of their own group than they do of other groups.¹⁴ In the first experiment, male and female white participants reviewed a booklet of information on three law school applicants that contained incidental information about the applicants’ race and gender, one of whom was black. The applicants’ qualifications were good but not outstanding for an applicant to a prestigious law school and, other than race and gender, were identical. The black applicant was judged more favorably by white evaluators than an otherwise identical white applicant. In a second experiment, applicants with weak credentials were presented. In this case the black applicant was judged less favorably by the white evaluators. Additional experiments confirmed the effect that members of one’s own group were judged less extremely.

The lesson from this research is that stereotypes have more of an effect than just reflecting prejudice against others who are not like us. Negative attitudes and prejudicial behavior toward others who look different are of course a source of serious concern. But the natural categorization of people that happens as a result of our limited mental capacity creates a potential minefield of less apparent issues in managing people who look different. The biased evaluations in the previous example are just one of these hidden issues. Another is thinking about our own behavior when trying to understand the behavior of others. That is, when we see others behave in a particular way, we ask ourselves what would cause us to behave that way. The danger in this type of thinking is that the culturally based causes for another person’s behavior could be very different from our own.

Stereotypes arise from the natural mental categorization that we all do; therefore, we all have them whether we recognize it or not. Anyone who claims not to is just kidding themselves. Failing to address the stereotypic expectations of individuals, particularly if they are supported by the organizational context, can sabotage efforts to leverage the unique skills and abilities of multiculturals.

Monoculturals and a Multicultural Mind

One of the key ways to overcome the negative issues associated with stereotypes is to help monoculturals think more like multiculturals. To do that requires monoculturals to model their development on the experience that leads to a multicultural mind. It is not possible to precisely duplicate the informal experiences of multiculturals that result in a multicultural mind. However, a range of formal methods are available that have been effective in improving the ability of individuals to function in foreign contexts and with culturally different others. The most rigorous of these methods attempts to approximate the multicultural experience. A useful categorization of methods based on social learning theory (the idea that learning is a mental process that involves observing the behavior and attitudes of others, and the outcomes of those behaviors)¹⁵ is shown in figure 6.1.

As shown in the figure, factual training involves books, lectures, and briefings about people from a specific background. Learners are passive receptacles for information. Analytical training such as case studies or language training requires more active engagement. Experiential training such as role plays or simulations involves the highest level of mental involvement. All of these methods can be effective in learning about other people who are different, but, all things being equal, the most effective methods of developing a multicultural mind are the ones with the most rigor. These methods require the evaluation and reconciliation of differences in values, attitudes, and assumptions about appropriate behavior that leads to a multicultural mind. As discussed in chapter 9, organizations that rely on less rigorous methods to address cultural diversity issues are missing the opportunity to change the way monoculturals think. The obligatory lecture on “valuing diversity” that is prevalent in so many organizations has little if any effect. While formal training has its role in managing diversity, other more experiential avenues may hold more promise.

Figure 6.1
Training the multicultural mind
(adapted from Black & Mendenhall, 1989)

Part of the answer to reducing the reliance on stereotypic expectations in today’s multicultural organizations exists within the organizations themselves. The opportunity for contact with others who are culturally different is itself part of the solution to the problem. We have long known that appropriate contact between groups with different identities could have a positive effect, as in the following example:

This is a story of 22 normal 12-year-olds who went to camp one summer at Robbers Cave State Park and became part of an experiment by researchers from the University of Oklahoma. The boys were carefully matched for individual characteristics and divided into two groups who were initially kept separate from each other. The groups spontaneously took on identities, one naming itself the “Rattlers” and the other the “Eagles,” and made group flags and so on. As each group became distantly aware of the other, its group identity was reinforced, and it became increasingly territorial about camp facilities. A series of competitive events between the groups was arranged. When the two competing groups were brought together for the first time in the dining hall, there was considerable name calling and singing of derogatory songs, and the groups refused to eat with each another. The conflict continued to escalate and included showing disrespect for each other’s flags and raiding of each other’s cabins, and some confrontations almost came to blows. Interventions, such as a series of informal get-to-know-each-other events had no effect. Then one day the water supply, which came from a reservoir in the mountains north of the camp, failed, which created a serious problem for everyone. Camp staff blamed vandals, but this was part of the experiment. Finding the source of the water supply problem and ultimately repairing it required the efforts and resources of both the Rattlers and the Eagles. When the water finally began running again, there was common rejoicing. Over the next few weeks, other challenges were effectively dealt with through the joint efforts of the two groups. On the last day of camp, the campers agreed that it would be a good thing to return home on the bus together.¹⁶

In this now classic experiment, the joint pursuit of what are called superordinate goals and the sharing of their achievement resulted in a lessening of tensions between the two groups that had developed separate identities. The lessons from Robbers Cave are even more important today than they were 60 years ago when these experiments were conducted. The Rattlers and Eagles of Robbers Cave are replaced in our organizations by numerous groups who are categorized as different by members of other groups. And just as at Robbers Cave, casual interventions that involve only superficial engagement by the different groups are unlikely to have an effect. In fact, casual contact of this sort can serve to reinforce stereotypes and strengthen adverse associations. What is required is what has come to be called the optimal contact strategy.¹⁷ Positive effects of contact between dissimilar groups occur only in situations having four key characteristics:

♦ First, it is important that both groups accept and perceive that they have equal status within the situation (even though status elsewhere may differ).

♦ Second, the positive effects of contact require an active, goal-oriented effort, as in repairing the water tank at Robbers Cave.

♦ Third, the attainment of the common goal must require interdependent effort without intergroup competition.

♦ Finally, the support of authorities establishes a norm for acceptance of the intergroup contact.

The process that occurs during this type of contact mirrors the development of the multicultural mind outlined in chapter 3.¹⁸ At the initial contact, individuals gain knowledge about the individual who is different and learn that their categorization of him or her may be wrong or at least incomplete (decategorization). As they interact over time, they learn not to generalize about members of this cultural group, and they learn to understand and treat them as individuals (individuation). Engagement with culturally different others in pursuit of a common goal leads them to understand the value that different perspectives bring to the situation (appreciation). Finally, over time individuals integrate these alternative perceptions into their own thinking (integration). By recognizing and learning to value differences (by seeing how they can contribute to achieving goals), individuals confront and reconcile differences in their own mind. By integrating alternative perspectives into their thinking, they begin to think like multiculturals. A diagram of this process is shown in figure 6.2.

As indicated in the diagram, differences both in individuals and in the societal and institutional context shape the nature of contact. This general approach should not be expected to work equally well with individuals of all cultures and in all societies and institutions. Previous attitudes and experiences influence whether or not people will engage in contact with culturally different others. Even if this initial resistance is overcome, the results may be less than optimal. For example, research has shown this to be the case with Israeli Arabs and Jews, and with blacks and whites in the United States.¹⁹ However, both societal and institutional characteristics can have a positive influence because all contact is embedded within them. Societal norms for discrimination can make the requirement for equal status within the situation more difficult to attain, while egalitarian norms make it easier.

Figure 6.2
Optimal contact and developing a multicultural mind

As discussed in chapter 9, organizations have the ability to create an environment that produces the characteristics that support optimal contact. By doing so they can overcome the myriad issues associated with categorization based on observable characteristics and create not only an environment in which multiculturals can thrive but also one in which monoculturals can develop a multicultural mind.

Summary

Our world is a complex place that presents us with a huge variety in the way people look, talk, and behave. Multiculturals often look “different” because of their mixed backgrounds. They often don’t fit a category that conforms to their observable characteristics. This categorization of others is a natural process that results from our brains being incapable of processing the volume and complexity of information that the environment presents to us. The human mind has developed this categorizing process to deal with information more efficiently. Categorizing people in this way is normal, but it has numerous consequences, some of which can be detrimental to effectively leveraging the skills and abilities of multiculturals. The categorizations or stereotypes that result from this process are based on limited information and once formed are applied to every member of the category. They influence our attitudes and expectations of everyone who matches the stereotype. Stereotypes result not only in prejudicial behavior toward others who don’t look like us but also in the creation of a number of other issues such as biased evaluations and inaccurate attributions of the behavior of others. Everyone uses these categorizations, so it is important to understand how to overcome the negative effects. One of the important ways of dealing with this issue is to help monoculturals develop a multicultural mind. Part of the solution to this issue exists within multicultural organizations themselves. By employing an optimal contact strategy, organizations can create situations in which different groups have equal status, are engaged in active, goal-oriented activities directed toward the attainment of a common outcome, and are working toward a goal that requires interdependent effort. In this way, monoculturals can progress through the stages of decategorization, individuation, appreciation, and integration and begin to think like multiculturals. Organizations have the ability to create an environment that supports the optimal contact strategy, which makes them a place where the talents of multiculturals can emerge and where monoculturals can develop a multicultural mind.