The concept of cultural plurality has become accepted in all contemporary societies (Fine et al.
1990; Triandis et al. 1993). Berry (1997) also believes that there are no longer any societies that can claim to be homogeneous. Granrose and Oskamp (1997) assert that after people from different cultural backgrounds have come to live together in a diverse society, they often form cultural groups that are not equal numerically, economically, or in terms of political power.
These are variously known as mainstream, minority, ethnic groups etc. Berry (1990a) supports the idea by suggesting that minorities are often becoming part of the mainstream culture.
However, UNESCO (1985) and Kymlicka (1995) argue that this phenomenon does not always happen, and in some cases it is resisted by either or both the dominant and non-dominant cultural groups, resulting in continuing cultural diversity.
60 2.10.1 Cause of cultural diversities in the workplace
According to Tung (1993) a cross-cultural work group often form after an organisation recruit people from different cultures to work together. Granrose and Oskamp (1997) highlight several factors as reasons of cultural diversities in the work places by explaining that some groups voluntarily to come live together (e.g., immigrants, in this case the ETAs) while another group is involuntary involved with others (e.g., refugees, slaves, indigenous peoples). Some groups come into contact with other society because they have migrated to a new location (e.g., immigrants and refugees) which could be permanent (e.g., immigrants and ethno-cultural groups) or temporary stay (e.g. sojourners such as guest workers and asylum seekers). While there is another group that have had the new culture brought to them (e.g., indigenous peoples and national minorities) (Granrose and Oskamp 1997). Despite different factors in leading to the establishment of plural societies, Berry and Sam (1996) suggest that the fundamental processes of intercultural relations and psychology adaptation appear to be common among these groups, what different is the degree of their interaction of each group which can result different outcome of their contact.
Granrose and Oskamp (1997) offer a diagram explaining outcome of the contact in culturally plural societies which has been divided into two domains; acculturation and ethnic relations.
Berry (1990a) points out that when individuals or groups have continuous intercultural contact, they may result in change upon them. However, Granrose and Oskamp (1997) assert that the results from the interaction could be varies due to number of factors such as social, political and psychological factors that are involve in the two groups in contact. Granrose and Oskamp (1997) also suggest that acculturation and ethnic relations in plural society can result in state of affairs that ranges from conflict and stress to mutual accommodation and adaptation.
61
Figure 2.1 Psychological research in work place with mixed cultures Adapted from Granrose and Oskamp (1997)
Granrose and Oskamp (1997) explain that the results of ongoing interaction of people engaged in shared activities are cultural maintenance which is when one‟s cultural identity and characteristics important to maintain. Transformation is another outcome from the interaction and is dependent upon to what extent one becomes involved with other cultural groups. In addition a conceptual framework is generated which posits four strategies of acculturation and another form of relation, it deals with the ability to get along with others from a different cultural background which is known as intercultural relations (Granrose and Oskamp 1997).
According to Berry (1974) from the point of view of non-dominant groups (which in this study is the selected hill tribe people) the following are the principal strategies:
Assimilation strategy is defined when individual do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek daily interaction with other cultures
Separation alternative is defined when individuals place a value on holding onto their original culture, and at the same time wish to avoid interaction with others
Integration strategy is defined when there is an interest in both maintaining one‟s original culture, and being in daily interactions with other groups by maintaining some degree of cultural integrity while at the same time seeking to participate as an integral part of the larger social network
Marginalisation is defined when there is little possibility of or interest in cultural maintenance and little interest in having relations with others
62
2.10.2 Outcome of cross-cultural interactions in the workplace
According to Punnett and Shenkar (1995) in the cross-cultural workplace people of different cultural backgrounds (minority) are expected to work in ways identical to the mainstream (majority), however the majority are often disappointed in the outcome. Berry and Kalin (1995) support this argument by affirming that people who are from different cultural backgrounds often think and act in ways they are used to which may only be relevant to their own values and beliefs. Lalonde and Cameron (1993) point out by having cross cultural work group may result in beneficial outcomes as they can gain different perspectives not only from the majority but also the minority‟s point of view. On the other hand, Brewer (1986) and McConahey (1986) share a similar idea by affirming that cross-cultural work groups can also create conflict among themselves. Despite the beneficial outcomes, Granrose and Oskamp (1997) argue that in most cases the minorities‟ view often gets ignored or punished.
Landis et al. (1993) highlight the benefits of cross-cultural work group as to promote equal opportunity, social justice and economic development by involving minorities into majority-dominated work group. Despite these positive outcomes, McConahey (1986) has contradicted Landis‟s study by arguing that in most cases, minorities often fail to receive equal opportunity or justice either inside or outside work group. Brewer (1986) also explain the cause of these outcomes which arise from basic intergroup dynamics- such as the apparent universal tendency to view one‟s own group as superior and more trustworthy than other groups. When the distinction of ingroup and outgroup membership is based on cultural group (ethnocentrism), rather than the work group, then opinion often formed beforehand which often result in discrimination against members of different cultures within a work group (Brewer 1986;
Dipboye and Colella 2005). Kmec (2006) agrees with Brewer by arguing that discrimination often leads to less effective functioning and negative work group interaction. Stephan (1994) also suggests that discrimination from cross-cultural workplaces may lead to avoidance or impoliteness, which is harmful to work group functioning. Moreover, cross-cultural working group may lead to unequal treatment of, or unequal opportunities for, group members not belonging to the most powerful cultural ingroup (Kinder and Sears 1981; Glick and Fiske 1994).