Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2012), 373379. Copyright 2012 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

1754-9426/12

RESPONSE

The Value of Connecting Diversity in Organizations and Cross-Cultural Work Psychology Through Dialogue and Multiplicity
BERNARDO M. FERDMAN Alliant International University LILACH SAGIV The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Abstract
In our focal article (Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012), we suggested that increased dialogue and connection between researchers and practitioners focused on diversity in organizations and those focused on cross-cultural work psychology could be benecial to growth and advancement in both elds. The thoughtful and intriguing commentaries to the article are heterogeneous both in the topics they focus on and in their relative emphasis on theory versus practice, and in our view support our call for more dialogue. In this response, we address some of the key issues the commentaries stimulated for us, including the notion of integration versus homogenization and the differential role of values in research in each eld. We summarize by highlighting, as did many of the commentaries, the importance of multiple and diverse approaches and perspectives, a value consistent with both elds.

In our focal article (Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012), we argued that it would be benecial to theory, research, and practice in both diversity in organizations and cross-cultural work psychology for the two elds to pay closer attention to each other. As a step in that direction, we offered brief reviews
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bernardo M. Ferdman. E-mail: bferdman@alliant.edu Address: California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, 10455 Pomerado Rd., San Diego, CA 92130, USA and Lilach Sagiv. E-mail: lilach.sagiv@mail.huji.ac.il Address: School of Business Administration, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905 Israel This paper was written in full collaboration; authorship is listed in alphabetical order. Sagivs work on this article was supported by a grant from the Recanati Fund of the School of Business Administration at the Hebrew University.

of the main interests and challenges in each eld, discussed their commonalities and differences, and gave various examples of how each could benet from drawing on the perspectives of and the knowledge gained in the other eld. In our article, we presented our subjective interpretation of the two elds and did not aim to comprehensively cover all relevant issues. Our goal was to stimulate dialogue and growth in both elds, and in that sense we were gratied by the commentaries we received. The nine commentaries are heterogeneous both in the topics they focus on and in their relative emphasis on theory versus practice; taken together, they raise many intriguing points. Some of the commentaries aim to further deepen the discussion of issues we raised in the focal article. Thus, for example, Feitosa, Grossman, Coultas, Salazar, and

373

374

B.M. Ferdman and L. Sagiv

Salas (2012) discuss the role of identity as a means to integrate diversity and crosscultural research, and expand on this issue, drawing on the distinction between surfacelevel and deep-level diversity. Sawyer and Thoroughgood (2012) as well as Shemla and Meyer (2012) shed more light on the relationships between diversity and culture, arguing for example that although not all sources of diversity reect cultural differences, it is culture that often gives meaning to and frames these differences. Thus, the meanings of gender identity (Sawyer & Thoroughgood) or religious diversity (Shemla & Meyer) vary crossculturally.1 Similarly, Sawyer and Thoroughgood (2012) point to the impact of the social context, in light of evidence that the extent to which ethnicity matters in an emerging organizational culture may depend in part on the minority versus majority status of the ethnic groups in question. Other commentaries introduce issues in diversity and cross-cultural work or their relationship that were not discussed in the focal article, such as the relative hierarchy and appeal of the two elds among scholars (King, Kravitz, McCausland, & Paustian-Underdahl, 2012), the potential dangers of integrating too much or too soon (Prasad, 2012), the development of competency frameworks across the two elds (Butts, Trejo, Parks, & McDonald, 2012), and the construct of subjective diversity (Shemla & Meyer, 2012). Graen, Hui, and Wakabayashi (2012) discuss managerdirect report alliances, illustrating another topic on which more dialogue between the diversity and cross-cultural perspectives would be benecial. The value of multiple voices and perspectives is that a more comprehensive and

1. This, of course, begs the question of which is the unit of analysis that is the bearer of culture. Are we talking about culture as an attribute of a society, a group within the society, or some other social collective? Focusing on both diversity and culture challenges both researchers and practitioners to address this type of question and to do so in a complex fashion that considers multiple levels of analysis.

complete view of the two elds can be developed. As various commentaries suggest and as we infer from the range of views expressed, how the elds are dened and circumscribed matters both to researchers and practitioners, and can have tangible implications for individuals and organizations. Yet even dening each eld is not simple or without controversy. Some commentators took issue with our denitions and perspectives, and similarly, we found ourselves disagreeing with some of the representations of the elds that were provided. For example, Wilson and Schwabenland (2012) say that diversity management . . . treats ethnicity and race as demographic variables that are xed and immutable . . . and does not explore the social and political inuences in identity construction (p. 365). Although this may be the case in some versions of diversity management, their description is not consistent with our own experience and practice (see, e.g., Ferdman, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2003; Gallegos & Ferdman, 2012) or with other leading work in the eld (e.g., on race and ethnicity: Nkomo & Stewart, 2006; Proudford & Nkomo, 2006; Zanoni, Janssens, Benschop, & Nkomo, 2010; on gender: Ely & Meyerson, 2000), which sees identity as contextualized and emergent, as well as subject to multiple social forces. We also disagree with Wilson and Schwabenlands claim that cross-cultural researchers assume homogeneity within societies. Hofstede (1980, 2001), for example, has been careful to point out that his cultural dimensions are relevant at the societal level and that individual level differences should be studied differently. Schwartz (1999, 2010; Sagiv, Schwartz, & Arieli, 2011) developed two theories of values, one for the societal level and one for the individual level. Although we disagree with the authors on these points, we appreciate their point about deepening the range of diversity that we attend to by expanding our cultural frames of reference. Finally, some commentaries disagree with ideas presented in the focal article, especially with regard to the nature of

Dialogue and multiplicity

375

relationships between the diversity and cross-cultural elds and the extent to which the two are similar or different. Interestingly, the commentaries present views that are not only sometimes different than our own but also vary from each other. In the rest of our response, we highlight a few key themes raised by the commentaries and discuss our views about their implications. Integration Is Not Homogenization In our focal article, we focused on the characteristics of both diversity in organizations and cross-cultural work psychology and on what each eld can learn from the other. We see the two elds as distinct areas differing in many ways, several of which we discussed in our paper. These distinctions are not only worth preserving but can serve to benet researchers and practitioners in each eld. In this sense, we agree with Prasad (2012) on the importance of maintaining analytical precision within each eld. Indeed, when we consider the nature, goals, and focus of other, related elds, we can better understand and dene our own specialty area. Such exposure may lead both researchers and practitioners to rene and sharpen their schemas, concepts, and ideasor to adjust and modify them. In some cases, researchers and practitioners may also borrow and adapt aspects of the other eld for their purposes, in ways that can be mutually benecial, but without necessarily losing their own focus. Some of the commentarieseither by arguing against our presumed position or by supporting itseem to suggest that we advocate more blending between the elds than we actually believe would be helpful or promoted in our article. We found it fascinating that, on the one hand, some of the commentators argued that the two elds are essentially the same and wondered why we tried to maintain a distinction without a difference (Lopez & Finkelman, 2012), but others accused us of overshooting by arguing for the premature or unnecessary merging of two elds that are better kept separate (e.g.,

Prasad, 2012). Such is the prism (and beauty) of diversity, as illustrated by this set of commentaries! We do not believe in nor did we argue for merging or blending the two elds. Our position on integration draws on theory and research in both diversity and cross-cultural psychology. Work on diversity and particularly the recent focus on inclusion suggest that there is great value in maintaining strong and distinct subgroup identications while creating a superordinate identity (e.g., Huo, Smith, Tyler, & Lind, 1996; Madera, King, & Hebl, 2012; Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009). Similarly, work on acculturation (Berry, 2001; Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989) denes integration as maintaining the identity and distinctiveness of two groups while they function together in one social system. Past research provides evidence for the benets of this type of acculturation over assimilation or separation (e.g., Berry, 1997). Ongoing dialogue and mutual exchange between the two eldsnot total blending or impenetrable boundariescan lead to such benecial integration, analogous to the processes that both elds have found to be most useful in the context of diversity and multiculturalism. Butts et al. (2012) illustrate a useful way of accomplishing this integration with their elaboration on aspects of workplace competencies deriving from both elds. By not completely blending them, this approach allows for consideration not only of competency in navigating cultural themes but also other aspects of diversity, such as awareness of privilege and the dynamics of dominance and subordination, processes that are affected by, yet not commensurate with culture (as Prasad, 2012, also points out). We agree that there are contexts, such as global organizations, in which diversity and cross-cultural psychology can be seen as part of a single continuum (as Lopez & Finkelman, 2012, argue); yet, we must keep in mind that there are other important constructs such as powerand other perspectives including cross-culturally varying perceptions of and responses to

376

B.M. Ferdman and L. Sagiv

diversity (e.g., King et al., 2012; Sawyer & Thoroughgood, 2012)that would make it less useful to see them this way. In summary, integration while maintaining differentiation is a key issue in diversity work in organizations. In their commentary, Wilson and Schwabenland (2012) use the term streams, which we nd quite apt, in the sense that it usefully keeps the distinctions while allowing for ow into a larger river and division into tributaries. We believe that encounters and mutual learning between the diversity and cross-cultural streams will be most benecial, whereas assimilation or even a full merger between the two is neither possible nor desirable. The Value of Dialogue About the Role of Values The benets and challenges of the type of integration via dialogue that we advocate were illustrated for us in processing our responses to some of the commentaries, and particularly to King et al.s (2012) contribution. We found that we could not easily arrive at a unied point of view that satised us both; given that, we decided to keep our two voices distinct here as we did in part of the focal article, not only to better communicate our differences but also to illustrate our jointly held point of view regarding the value of dialogue, which can be quite useful to note disagreement without the need to resolve it, and dialogues role in learning about ourselves and others. In that sense, we hope we are manifesting our shared value regarding the importance of documenting, respecting, and appreciating both diversity and cross-cultural differences and avoiding homogenization in the context of integration.

The Role of Values (Ferdman)

Cross-cultural research describing and explaining variations in values and attitudes is quite helpful and important, and it provides a substantive basis for describing and understanding diversity beyond an approach grounded solely on social identity

or categories (Ferdman, 1992). At the same time, I agree with King et al.s (2012) position that, in some cases, simply describing cross-cultural differences without also considering the dynamics and processes of cross-cultural interactions in light of these differences or the researchers values with regard to cultural variations may be a way of trying to stay neutral in ways that can make it more difcult to engage in effective diversity management. Nevertheless, in this regard King et al. characterize the crosscultural eld in a way that is overgeneralized and ultimately inaccurate, something that I recognized only after multiple conversations with my coauthor Sagiv. For me, this highlights the degree to which, even as a diversity scholar, I am subject to engaging in stereotyping. Cross-cultural work psychology makes values the subject; it could perhaps do more to consider how research and researchers are themselves inuenced by those values. At the same time, those focusing on diversity tend to look at values as providing context yet could do more to consider the role of values in what we study and in applying our theory and research in practice, particularly to the extent that views about and approaches to diversity themselves have a strong cultural component (as Sawyer & Thoroughgood, 2012, argue). Overall, King et al. (2012) argue that (a) cross-cultural work psychology should better take into account and look at intergroup perceptions (in light of values), (b) diversity management needs to be studied and addressed in a culturally grounded and culturally specic way, and (c) workplace diversity and diversity management are inappropriately often given less attention and may be less socially acceptable among organizational scholars than cross-cultural differences. Although I generally agree with each of these points, I also believe that a more nuanced perspective of the two elds is warranted and that it is not particularly helpful to make overly broad generalizations about either eld. For example, not all diversity scholars seek to prove that diversity and inclusion

Dialogue and multiplicity

377

are good or benecial, and many crossculturalists (e.g., intercultural trainers) are actively involved in seeking to improve intergroup relations in ways that indeed value multiculturalism and inclusion and in no way can be construed as value free. Similarly, scholars and practitioners tend to take varying positions with regard to the appropriateness of valuing particular outcomes, with scholars tending to be more descriptive and practitioners more prescriptive. In a sense then, the issue may be more about the different values of pure researchers versus practitioners than the differences between those who focus on diversity or diversity management and those who focus on cross-cultural variations. In developing this dialogue with Sagiv regarding King et al.s (2012) contribution and the values orientations of the diversity versus cross-cultural elds, I have come to wonder whether I fully understand the cross-cultural literature, and I realize that I probably have more to learn about its perspective, range, goals, and nuances, as well as its application to the eld of diversity. Even though I believe that I have a sophisticated understanding of the cross-cultural eld and have written about various aspects of it (e.g., Ferdman, 1992, 1995, 1999), this may not be sufcient. If I am to be consistent with my values as a diversity researcher/practitioner, I need to understand more about a point of view that may be different than mine and with which I may not necessarily agree. In this sense, then, dialogue between the elds provides a powerful means to deepen our understanding (and our not understanding; see Gurevitch, 1989) of both ourselves and the other.

their personal, organizational, and professional values in their choice of research topics as well as in their attitudes, orientations, and goals. In our focal article we discussed the commonalities and differences in the values that underlie the diversity and cross-cultural elds. We suggested that researchers in both areas are motivated to challenge the Western dominance in work psychology. They thus share the wish to identify, recognize, and give voice to diverse individuals and groups. In that sense, I agree with King et al. (2012) that values matter and cannot be ignored. Diversity and cross-cultural researchers and practitioners, then, are motivated by similar values; neither eld is value free and both are values driven. The two elds also differ, however.

Diversity research. Motivated to give voice to multiple perspectives, researchers in the diversity eld typically advocate for inclusion of multiple identities, especially of those less powerful and less privileged, as a means to that end. Diversity researchers and practitioners are therefore often motivated to change attitudes, goals, and values of individuals and organizations to allow for such inclusion. In that sense, the diversity eld is not only values driven but also motivated to inuence the values of its constituents (e.g., employees, managers, researchers). This is exemplied well in King et al.s (2012) commentary, which seems to suggest that cross-cultural researchers should change. Cross-cultural research. Although motivated by the same overarching goalto give voice to multiple perspectivescrosscultural researchers usually aim to identify and describe such perspectives in a nonjudgmental manner. Thus, researchers in this eld are not value free, but are usually free of the aim of changing values, perceptions, or actions that prevail in the societies and organizations that they study. They are committed to give voice to cultural values, beliefs, and practices that they may personally disagree with.

The Role of Values (Sagiv)

Values affect professional choices such as occupational choice, policy orientation, and decision making (e.g., Adams, Licht, & Sagiv, 2011; Gandal, Roccas, Sagiv, & Wrzesniewski, 2005). Like other professionals, researchers are often affected by

378

B.M. Ferdman and L. Sagiv

Cross-cultural research identies cultural commonalities and differences and investigates the complex ways through which cultural dimensions affect individuals, teams, and organizations in perception (e.g., the process of sense making) and action. The knowledge gained by studies done taking this perspective serves to explain some of the ndings King et al. (2012) point to and advocate for. Thus, for example, crosscultural research on cultural dimensions of values serves to explain why cultures differ in their attitudes towards gender equality, why individuals from collectivistic cultures are often less open to diversity training, and how and when cultures differ in their tolerance towards others. In summary, diversity researchers rely on their values as a means to change others values. Cross-cultural researchers, in contrast, rely on the same values to give voice to othersincluding those who do not share them. As a cross-cultural researcher, I believe both approaches are worthy, and both should be valued and respected. The Importance of Multiple and Diverse Approaches and Perspectives To us, the diverse range of commentaries and the multiple perspectives they representas well as the voices that are not includedillustrate both the importance of diversity and the role of culture (academic or disciplinary culture in this case) in inuencing both what we work on and how we perceive our own work and that of others. By incorporating multiple and diverse voices, we can learn and accomplish more, and hopefully derive better insights and results. Each of us, from our own vantage point, sees only some aspects of the larger picture or puzzle. It is only through the combination and juxtaposition of multiple perspectives and voices that a more complete and complex picture can emerge, a picture that often may be difcult if not impossible for any one observer to absorb fully. In writing our focal article we focused on some partsthose parts that are

most central to our professional identities or more congruent with our professional values. Similarly, each of the commentators sees and comments on a different part of the full puzzle (or proverbial elephant). Soliciting and including many voices and views starts to allow for a more nuanced and complete view. Interestingly, not all voices were represented in the commentaries. Specically, the set of commentaries does not include much from a cross-cultural perspective. To us, as with diversity and inclusion at work, this in part suggests that solicitation for all voices may not be enough. Ultimately, the exchange of views represented in this set of articles validates for us the value of humility about how much understanding and learning is possible from any single perspective and reinforces our view about the generative value of proactive exchange and connection between the elds of diversity in organizations and cross-cultural work psychology. References
Adams, R., Licht, A., & Sagiv, L. (2011). Shareholders and stakeholders: How do directors decide? Strategic Management Journal, 32, 13311355. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 568. Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615631. Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 185206. Butts, C. C., Trejo, B., Parks, K. M., & McDonald, D. P. (2012). The integration of diversity and crosscultural work: Competencies and commonalities. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 361364. Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 22, 105153. Feitosa, J., Grossman, R., Coultas, C. W., Salazar, M. R., & Salas, E. (2012). Integrating the elds of diversity and culture: A focus on social identity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 365368. Ferdman, B. M. (1992). The dynamics of ethnic diversity in organizations: Toward integrative models. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 339384). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.

Dialogue and multiplicity

Ferdman, B. M. (1995). Cultural identity and diversity in organizations: Bridging the gap between group differences and individual uniqueness. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 3761). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ferdman, B. M. (1999). The color and culture of gender in organizations: Attending to race and ethnicity. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 1734). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ferdman, B. M. (2000). Why am I who I am? Constructing the cultural self in multicultural perspective. Human Development, 43, 1923. Ferdman, B. M. (2003). Learning about our and others selves: Multiple identities and their sources. In N. A. Boyacigiller, R. Goodman, & M. Phillips (Eds.), Crossing cultures: Insights from master teachers (pp. 4961). London, UK: Routledge. Ferdman, B. M., & Sagiv, L. (2012). Diversity in organizations and cross-cultural work psychology: What if they were more connected? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 323345. Gallegos, P. V., & Ferdman, B. M. (2012). Latina and Latino ethnoracial identity orientations: A dynamic and developmental perspective. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson (Eds.). New perspectives on racial identity development: Integrating emerging paradigms into racial identity models. New York, NY: New York University Press. Gandal, N., Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2005). Personal value priorities of economists. Human Relations, 58, 12271252. Graen, G., Hui, C., & Wakabayashi, M. (2012). Manager-direct report alliances as a context for integrating cross-cultural and diversity research. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 368370. Gurevitch, Z. D. (1989). The power of not understanding: The meeting of conicting identities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25, 161173. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identication, subgroup identication, and justice concerns: Is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7, 4045. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00664.x King, E. B., Kravitz, D. A., McCausland, T., & PaustianUnderdahl, S. (2012). Values cannot be ignored. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 354357. Lopez, P. D. J., & Finkelman, J. M. (2012). A distinction without a difference? Why synergies between diversity and cross-cultural psychology benet

379
global organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 349351. Madera, J. M., King, E. B., & Hebl, M. R. (2012). Bringing social identity to work: The inuence of manifestation and suppression on perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 165170. doi: 10.1037/a0027724. Nkomo, S., & Stewart, M. M. (2006). Diverse identities in organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.). The Sage handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 520540). London, UK: Sage. Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or colorblindness better for minorities? Psychological Science, 20, 444446. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02318.x. Prasad, A. (2012). Research commensurability: Or, the loss of analytical precision. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 352354. Proudford, K. L., & Nkomo, S. (2006). Race and ethnicity in organizations. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 323344). London, UK: Sage. Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Arieli, S. (2011). Personal values, national culture and organizations: Insights applying the Schwartz Value Framework. In N. N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed, pp. 515537). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sawyer, K., & Thoroughgood, C. (2012). Culture doesnt just intersect with diversity, culture denes diversity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 346348. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). Cultural value differences: Some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Journal, 48, 2347. Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Values: Individual and cultural. In S. M. Breugelmans, A. Chasiotis, & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shemla, M., & Meyer, B. (2012). Bridging diversity in organizations and cross-cultural work psychology by studying perceived differences. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 370372. Wilson, K. Y., & Schwabenland, C. (2012). International and intranational cultures in organizations: Overlapping or contested terrain? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 357361. Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y., & Nkomo, S. (2010). Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality: Rethinking difference through critical perspectives. Organization, 17, 929. doi: 10.1177/1350508 409350344.