CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN
MULTICULTURALISM AND CONFLICT

Mekayla K. Castro

Peter T. Coleman

One need only briefly peruse the Internet to come to face to face with the reality of today’s shrinking world. In little more than the time it takes to press the Enter key of a laptop, you can gain access to a recipe for Ukrainian syrniki, take a virtual tour of a hotel in Bhutan, and watch traditional Tshwane dancers in South Africa. The exchange between different cultures is increasingly less distant and voyeuristic, however, and more active and significant. Consider the impact of microloans and the opportunity to assist people all over the world—a pig farmer in Guatemala, a coffee seller in Cambodia, a hairdresser in Liberia. If you live in a multicultural society like the United States, the vast array of subcultures and ethnic enclaves means that many of us do not have to leave our home town to experience another culture’s language, cuisine, art, and traditions.

With significant interaction and unlimited accessibility come the inevitable contrasts in how people make sense of, experience, and treat one another and the environment. When cultures collide, the impact can be devastating on individuals, groups, and society at large. In a world that is familiar with culturally based conflicts at the group level, there is a sense that culturally derived rifts occur increasingly in day-to-day life and at more personal microlevels than ever before. Thus, there is great need to stop and reflect on how to understand and effectively manage the tensions that arise as a result of our increasingly multicultural existence.

In this chapter, we offer an introduction to the relationship of multiculturalism, conflict, and conflict resolution. First, we present an overview of multiculturalism as a social movement—the good, the bad, and the practical—in a manner distinct from but not unrelated to conflict. We then link multiculturalism with conflict resolution theory and practice through a reflection on the implications of multiculturalism for how we define good research and practice and a discussion of how a multicultural conflict lens compares and contrasts with the study of culture and conflict. We devote the second part of the chapter to the presentation of a theoretical approach to the management of multicultural conflict: the integrity-adaptivity model (I-AM), which provides an integrated approach to managing conflict in a culturally and multiculturally congruent fashion.

MULTICULTURALISM AS A SOCIAL MOVEMENT

The literature on multiculturalism is interdisciplinary in nature, with important contributions from education, psychology, philosophy, history, sociology, and political science. As a by-product of the diverse approaches to multiculturalism, it has become a multifaceted concept with varying shades to its definition. In the broadest sense, multiculturalism refers to the presence of and significant interaction between different cultures in a geographical space (Gutmann, 1993). The appeal of this definition is the simplicity and applicability it offers to scholars and practitioners regardless of one’s intellectual roots. At the same time, however, such a generalist take minimizes what makes multiculturalism a construct imbued with passion and purpose. More than a look into the presence of diversity, multiculturalism takes into account the implications of living in a diverse society, where issues of status, power, privilege, and politics often take center stage. It pertains to how dominant cultures perceive, relate to, and treat the various subcultures within a society. History and experience tell us that the resulting social hierarchies typically confer superiority on the dominant culture and marginalization and discrimination on subcultures, to varying degrees (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999).

Fowers and Richardson (1996) offer a definition of multiculturalism that emphasizes its normative role as a social movement: “Multiculturalism is a social-intellectual movement that promotes values of diversity as a core principle and insists that all cultural groups be treated with respect as equals” (p. 609). Stemming from atrocities associated with the Holocaust, colonization, and both direct and institutionalized forms of racism in the post–World War II United States, support for multiculturalism rose as a component of the broader “human rights revolution” (Wessendorf, 2010, p. 35). A spirited characterization of the term, one quickly understands why multiculturalism is an energizing concept, with strong supporters and harsh critics anchoring a continuum of beliefs and opinions. Its three core elements of identity, recognition, and social justice play an important role in mobilizing an approach to intergroup relations that prioritizes mutual respect and equality in managing difference (Taylor, 1994).

Taylor (1994) positions multiculturalism as a political call for the recognition of identity. He contends that when individuals or a group, because of their cultural difference, are denied recognition, their collective identity is experienced as tainted and insignificant within the mainstream understanding of what is good, ideal, and desirable. This lack of recognition has an oppressive effect on individuals, restricting their ability to enact with pride and confidence their authentic selves in the context of their cultural identity. Thus, in its most political form, multiculturalism as a movement seeks to mitigate the lack of acknowledgment of identities through advocating special rights and policies for groups whose culture is in danger of being ignored, squelched, or demeaned. In other words, it seeks social justice.

However, two somewhat contradictory strategies have developed in response to calls for justice through multiculturalism (Marsh, 1997; Meyer, 2010). The first focuses on the values of direct interaction and communication between members of different cultural groups in service of a more multicultural society. Such interactions provide opportunities for cultural differences to be shared and communicated in a manner that helps to foster greater multiculturalism. This is the sentiment expressed in e pluribus unum : “Out of many, one.” The second strategy emphasizes the importance of maintaining cultural uniqueness. More insular cultural practices can protect the uniqueness of a local culture of a nation or area and therefore strengthen its cultural diversity. A common aspect of many policies following this approach is that they avoid presenting any specific ethnic, religious, or cultural community values as dominant or central (Mooney-Cotter, 2011). To some degree, multicultural societies require both.

Multiculturalism as a political movement has been recognized for several notable contributions. First, it provides a normative framework for enacting liberal ideals of dignity, freedom, and equality within organizations and communities. By championing these as basic human rights, it impresses on groups and societies the need to uphold the civil liberties afforded everyone, regardless of culture. Second, multiculturalism supports the recognition and survival of distinct cultures in an evolving world with increasingly blurred international boundaries and intermingling of groups. When actions are taken to safeguard culturally relevant values and norms, communities feel more secure that their group’s existence is not only recognized but appreciated. Third, a multicultural frame seeks to engender in everyone the capacity for empathy, perspective taking, and critical reflection—and in members of dominant groups particularly—resulting in increased cultural intelligence, or the “capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts” (Earley and Ang, 2003). From scholars to practitioners, leaders to managers, teachers to medical professionals, stretching beyond one’s worldview to question the generalizability of our assumptions and behaviors fosters greater intercultural competence. Fourth, using a multicultural frame can facilitate the advancement of organizations and societies. Benefits include heightened creativity (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, and Neale, 1998; Harrison, Price, and Bell, 1998), increased learning and individual effectiveness (Thomas and Ely, 1996), and stronger organizational performance (Kochan et al., 2003; Richard, Murthi, and Ismail, 2007).

With all its promise, multiculturalism is not without its problems, and critics have been quick to note limitations. Although one of the goals of multiculturalism is to ensure the dignity and rights of all individuals and groups, there are instances in which an unmitigated approach to multiculturalism reinforces the oppression of certain subgroups within cultures. For example, if the goal of multiculturalism is to respect and uphold, without exception, a cultural group’s beliefs and practices, then what happens when a culture engages in the oppression of women through acts such as clitoridectomy and honor killing (Boege, 2006)? This is a dilemma within multiculturalism, because in prioritizing the rights of cultures to live according to their internally derived standards, the rights and liberties of certain low-power subgroups within cultures are potentially violated (Gutmann, 1993). This tension arises from the faulty assumption that there exists uniformity within a culture regarding the acceptance and justness of its traditions. The norms and values defining a culture are likely to be highly influenced by its dominant members, and groups holding such prominence are often determined by systematic differences in age and gender (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). Consequently the multicultural elements of identity, recognition, and social justice need to be considered not only in relations between cultures but in relations within cultures as well. Ultimately, valuing and respecting difference cannot usurp addressing systemic inequities, lest the multicultural approach fail to deliver on one of its basic tenets (Purdie-Vaughns and Waltons, 2011).

Furthermore, multicultural societies have been found to strain levels of trust and social cohesion. Putnam (2007) conducted an extensive study investigating the effects of multiculturalism on social trust. Surveying nearly thirty thousand people in forty American communities and controlling for class, income, and other factors, his analysis revealed that racial diversity in a community was associated with greater the loss of trust. He found that generally:

Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television. (Putnam, 2007, p. 150–151)

It seems that in more diverse communities, we distrust people both different from us and similar to us.

Despite the tensions and challenges of multiculturalism, there does not seem to be reason enough to throw the principles out with the problems. Volpp (2001) makes a compelling case regarding the detriment of pitting rights and equality-based ideologies against one another, for they need not be mutually exclusive. She argues that feminist criticisms of multiculturalism tend to focus on what are deemed the oppressive aspects of minority cultures (e.g., clitoridectomy in Sudan) and obscure the cultural aspects of gender-oppressive acts existing in Western liberal societies in general (e.g., gun violence against women in the United States). She writes,

In this discourse, feminism also stands for “rights” and multiculturalism stands for “culture.” . . . Each term is presumed to exclude the values of the other. Feminism is presumed not to value the rights of minority cultures; multiculturalism is presumed not to value the rights of women. Constructing feminism and multiculturalism as oppositional severely constricts how we think about difference. (p. 1203)

APPLICATIONS OF MULTICULTURALISM

Today there are several noteworthy applications of multiculturalism employing the spirit of its principles and objectives. For example, multicultural education offers an important critique of and alternative to traditional Western approaches to curriculum design and pedagogy. It is “a progressive approach for transforming education that holistically critiques and responds to discriminatory policies and practices in education” (Gorski, 2010). Woven together by ethics of social justice, educational parity, and critical pedagogy, multicultural education is ultimately about the transformation of self, schools, and society. Banks (1993), a seminal scholar on multicultural education, offers a multipronged approach to school reform covering educational content, pedagogy, teacher and student attitudes, and school culture that provides an exemplary model for comprehensive change.

Another fruitful application of multiculturalism is in the area of counseling psychology. A call to the profession was made in 1992 by Sue, Arredondo, and McDavis for better multicultural competencies and standards. They delineated three broad competency areas: self-awareness regarding cultural values and biases, awareness of client’s worldview, and culturally appropriate intervention strategies. The seriousness with which the call has been taken is evident in the guidelines published by the American Psychological Association (2003) for realizing multiculturally appropriate practice, education, and research in psychology writ large (Sampson, 1993). The guidelines outline competencies in terms of cultural self and other awareness, responsiveness to and knowledge of the culturally different, employment of diversity concepts, and consideration of cultural issues in research.

The area of multicultural organizational development and consultation (MODC) (Jackson and Holvino, 1988; Sue, 2008) is another promising application of multiculturalism. MODC assists organizations in understanding how various diversity dimensions, including race and ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, affect individuals, institutions, and society (Sue, 2008). It “focuses specifically on multicultural organizational development (MOD) in which the primary goal of the consultant is to enhance the organization’s ability to adapt to and use diversity to maintain or improve effectiveness by providing for equal access and opportunity” (Sue, 2008, p. 158–159). A multiculturally competent consultant seeks and embraces occasions to dismantle oppressive structures of power and privilege within organizational systems, using various techniques and tools to break down individual and group resistance to change.

These applications are a testament to the usefulness of multicultural principles in various aspects of societal and organizational life, offering a practical social justice orientation to managing diversity.

Multiculturalism and Conflict: Reflections on the Meaning of Conflict and Resolution

In the application of multiculturalism to education, Banks (1993) emphasizes the notion of knowledge construction, which concerns how doctrine and wisdom inherently reflect the assumptions, values, and ideologies of those who create it. Multiculturally sensitive practice calls for recognition of various types of knowledge, reflection on dominant and subordinated types of knowledge, and debate about the interpretation of knowledge. This critical eye toward the construction of knowledge has similarly been applied to the meaning of conflict and the recommended strategies for resolution.

Rooted primarily in Western ideals and principles and dominated in practice, theory, and research by white Americans and Europeans, conflict resolution as a field is culturally bound (Deutsch, 2005; Faure, 1995; Lederach, 1995). This is not to suggest that conflict and dispute resolution professionals do not value cultural issues, because they do (Avruch, 2003), and attention to issues of diversity has increased dramatically in the field (Deutsch, Coleman, and Marcus, 2006). But despite promising trends, conflict resolution cannot escape a history that in its origins paid insufficient attention to issues of difference (Avruch, 2003). For instance, Burton and Sandole (1986), asserted a generic theory of conflict, one that disregards the role of culture in favor of universal human needs, such as identity, meaning, development, and consistency. Critics, however, noted that the identification of universal needs is itself influenced by culture and therefore not an objective process (Avruch, 1987). Attention to the intercultural generalizability of conflict resolution principles and propositions is certainly appropriate given its application beyond Europe and North America as a process for ameliorating various forms of contention (Faure, 1995; Miall, Ramsbotham, and Woodhouse, 1999). Indeed, conflict resolution has global appeal and necessity.

Helping to unpack bias in mainstream approaches to conflict analysis and resolution, Salem (1993) identified several Western assumptions that undergird the field, suggesting that our interpretations of the main constructs related to peace, time, change, and conflict are often not universally shared. For instance, he contrasts Western linear assumptions regarding change through cause-and-effect processes with alternative perspectives such as change through dialectics and synchronicity. In addition, Salem argues that as Western societies thrive economically and technologically, there is a higher sense of confidence in the attainability of collaborative, win-win solutions to problems, an assumption not likely to be held in societies and subcultures with turbulent histories and economic stagnation or decline. In addition, he argues that predominant attention is often paid in the field to the role of human agency in conflict, which could be challenged culturally in collectivist societies, or alternatively attributed to explanations related to ideology, religiosity, and spirituality. Furthermore, in nonrelativistic cultures that hold tightly to right-wrong and zero-sum schemas, integrative strategies based on constructive values can be experienced as near-futile options.

The cultural variation in perceptions and beliefs regarding conflict and dispute resolution is undeniable (Avruch and Black, 1991; Gelfand, Nishii, Holcombe, Dyer, Ohbuchi, and Fukuno, 2001). To bolster the cross-cultural generalizability of conflict resolution theory and research, Faure (1995) suggested that “we start from the beginning, avoiding from the very start the domination of American perspectives” (p. 53). He recommended incorporating multicultural perspectives and voices at the start of initiatives designed to explore or research conflict-related concepts and practices, with the thinking that this would be a good way to ensure cultural inclusion as a basic process in conflict analysis and resolution. While this seems to be a radical solution, it does beg us to consider where we go from here.

The eminent American conflict resolution scholar Morton Deutsch (1995) suggests a path forward that honors the efforts and progress of the field and integrates culturally conscious ways of knowing:

My brand of grandiosity is at the level of constructs, not at the level of phenomena. It is my hope that our field can develop constructs and then be able to specify the relationships among them so that they are applicable across cultures and time, and to different types of social actions. The phenomena to which one would relate the underlying constructs (“interdependence,” “trust,” “hostility,” “influence,” “goal,” “cooperation,” “competition,” “conflict”) would vary considerably from culture to culture, from one type of social actor to another, from one situation to another. Thus, hostility would be manifested differently in Japan than in the United States and would be expressed differently between nations than between people. But presumably hostility would have the same basic relation to the other constructs in the theory in the various contexts. (p. 125)

Multiculturalism, Culture, and Conflict

Thus far we have discussed multiculturalism as an approach and a movement that proposes guidelines for equitably and inclusively managing the increasing cultural diversity in today’s societies. If the charge of multiculturalism is to ensure recognition, equality, fairness, and the safety of identities, then its relationship to the study and practice of conflict could be seen as a lens through which to examine and ensure a socially just understanding, analysis, and resolution of conflict. Before we delve into the particulars of this lens, a brief discussion on the similarities and differences between multicultural and cultural approaches to conflict study will help provide conceptual clarity (also see chapter 25 in this Handbook).

When we talk about conflict, is a distinction between multiculturalism and culture useful? Several years ago, one of us served in a supporting role at an intercultural awareness training for a culturally diverse organization. One of the training exercises had each person share a norm or artifact about his or her nationality or ethnicity. One woman from a Latin American nation explained that in her culture, if a man saw a woman on the street and found her attractive, it was not only acceptable but expected that he indicate his liking for her through verbal expression: whistling, complimenting her physical appearance, shouting a term of endearment to her. Some outward display of affection was generally viewed favorably by women. Now suppose an exchange such as this occurred, but the man and woman do not share the same understanding. A man whistles at a woman as she walks by on a public street. The man sincerely believes his gesture to be complimentary, but it is not perceived as such by the woman; rather, she believes it to be demeaning and intrusive. Is this a cultural conflict or a multicultural conflict? Does it matter?

We can define culture as “shared often unspoken, understandings in a group that shape identities and the process of making meaning,” (LeBaron and Pillay, 2006, p. 26). Avruch (2003) identified three ways in which culture is conceived in the domain of conflict resolution:

• Culture as constituted by norms, values, and beliefs, which provide the context for understanding rules of appropriate behavior during times of conflict
• Culture conceived as “affecting significant perceptual orientations toward time, risk or uncertainty, affect (in self and others), hierarchy, power, or authority” (p. 354)
• Culture as composed of mental models, schemas, scripts, or maps and takes forms such as language, symbols and metaphors

The latter two conceptions shed light on why cross-cultural praxis is heavily focused on communication patterns and styles and why there is a rich tool kit for managing communication processes across cultures (Avruch, 2003).

Based on this composition of cultural conflict theory, there is alignment with the multicultural perspective; broadly, the content and process of culture matter. In order to understand and resolve both multicultural and cultural conflicts, knowledge of the unique beliefs, values, perceptual orientations, and schemas of social groups are vital for negotiating across difference. Both schools would agree that with this knowledge, there must also be openness and adaptivity of mind, body, and emotion in the face of difference. In the case of culture, harmony can be neither a method nor a result when there is resistance to accepting the cultural differences of another. In the case of multiculturalism, identities cannot be recognized and justice cannot prevail when the boundaries of one’s cultural conceptions are narrow, rigid, and exclusive. Therefore, conflict perspectives from a multicultural and a cultural lens converge on the importance of cultural knowledge and adaptation to its content and process.

This similarity between the two approaches is also met with several notable differences. First, the culture perspective offers a more neutral orientation to the study of conflict across difference. Culture from this perspective is descriptive of social groups, and these descriptions are used to make meaning of intergroup conflict and to suggest viable management alternatives. The culture approach to conflict illuminates the particularities of culture-near and culture-distant experiences in an attempt to land on appropriate and sensitive methods and practices for engaging culturally different others in preventing and deescalating conflict. In an admittedly overly simplistic example, two culturally different groups in the process of resolution may ask, “Given our culture—its norms, expectations, beliefs, etc.—and given your culture—its norms, expectations, beliefs, etc.—how can we negotiate across these differences to problem solve fairly and effectively?” (see Kimmel, 2006).

Multiculturalism, however, is anything but neutral. By emphasizing the power and status imbalances that exist between groups, it is prescriptive of how such asymmetries can and should be reduced. The brunt of attention is not about a particular culture, yours or mine, but focus is placed on each culture’s relationship to the other and their standing within a larger power and privilege context of intergroup relations. For two culturally different groups in conflict, the question then becomes, “Given our culture’s standing and sociopolitical history as it relates to your culture’s standing and sociopolitical history, how can we negotiate across these differences to problem-solve fairly and effectively?”

Another distinction between multiculturalism and culture concerns the degree of importance paid to harmony. In the various culture-focused avenues within conflict theory and analysis, there is the cross-cultural variety, explicating the specific conflict maps of various cultures; there is the intercultural perspective, honing in on the implications of similarities and differences in conflict modes and styles between cultures; and there is the transnational perspective, the study and application of strategies with effectiveness in multiple cultures (Avruch and Black, 1991). Implicit in these approaches is the concern for understanding culture so as to achieve and maintain harmony in and across human relationships, preferably with constructive, low-risk processes and outcomes. The multiculturalist perspective on conflict, in its deliberate attack on injustice, gives much less prominence to the role of harmony. Undeniably multicultural conflicts characterized by harmonious processes and outcomes are appealing, but multiculturalists acknowledge and prepare for often tumultuous and protracted journeys to equity and equality.

Returning to our illustration of the man who whistles at a woman as she passes, it is likely obvious at this point that the lens with which one views the situation does matter and that it is both a cultural and multicultural incident. From the cultural and multicultural point of view, one might use lenses of national, ethnic, and gender contexts to make sense of the situation. However, the cultural intervention might place emphasis on misunderstanding and norm differences, while the multicultural intervention might place more emphasis on sexual politics and gender hierarchies.

There is another similarity between multiculturalism and culture that represents a shared weakness of both perspectives. The critique on multiculturalism as overestimating the homogeneity of culture is also a critique regarding many cultural approaches to conflict theory, research, and practice. Assumptions of culture as an embodiment rather than something that is embodied, as static and uniform, and as traditions and customs rather than a form of locally derived consciousness, have acted as obstacles to a more nuanced understanding of culture-based conflicts (Avruch and Black, 1991). These assumptions foreshadow an increasingly relevant limitation associated with both multiculturalism and culture-based strategies: the complexity and dynamism of culture has increased as social identities have multiplied and intersected.

For one of us, this limitation has acute relevance. Born to an African American mother and Puerto Rican American father, she has yet to read any description of these cultures that accurately conveys or intuitively resonates with her experience. There is no nicely packaged review, for instance, of what African–Puerto Rican American culture is, let alone what conflict means to this group or how one should engage with them when in conflict. In situations that potentially violate identity, recognition, or justice for individuals with multiple identities, cultural and multicultural lenses fall short of appropriate analytical and practical tools to resolve conflict.

Showing the importance of understanding multiple identities, a recent study by Kim-Jo, Benet-Martínez, and Ozer (2010) examined the conflict styles of biculturals (Korean Americans) in comparison to monoculturals (European Americans and Koreans). Given the previously identified conflict style differences between members of more individualistic (European Americans) and collectivistic (Korean) cultures, the researchers were interested in how exposure to both types of cultures would influence conflict management strategies. They found that Korean Americans used the individualistic style of competing more than Koreans did and that they also used the collectivistic style of avoidance more than Koreans did. This illustrates that how we experience culture and conflict is a function of our constellation of identities, and this becomes even more complicated when we consider the hegemonic variation among identities.

The relationship of multiculturalism, culture, and conflict resolution is both complex and complementary. It is our hope that we have provided meaningful distinctions and caveats on how both lenses affect ways of seeing and not seeing the relationship between cultural differences and conflict. However, the research in these areas remains disjointed, and much remains to be explored and validated. We propose that providing a framework for understanding the core conditions and competencies needed to successfully address both cultural and multicultural conflict will assist researchers in conducting studies with greater coherence, focus, and rigor and will support practitioners in enhancing constructive and mitigating destructive forms of multicultural conflict.

A THEORETICAL APPROACH TO MANAGING MULTICULTURAL CONFLICT: THE INTEGRATION-ADAPTATION MODEL

The model we present here integrates the aims, values, and strategies of both the cultural approach to conflict management, which emphasizes the harmonious navigation of difference in conflict, with the multicultural approach, which champions notions of equity, justice, and fairness in disputes. It does so by highlighting the core competencies and strategies needed for managing cultural and multicultural conflict in both a just and constructive manner. Thus, the core foci of the model are fairness and fit.

The integration-adaptation model (I-AM) takes a dynamical systems theory (DST) approach to multicultural conflict and its resolution (see Nowak and Vallacher, 1998; Vallacher, Coleman, Nowak, and Bui-Wrzosinska, 2010; Vallacher et al., 2013). This approach has a few basic tenets (for elaboration, see Coleman, 2011; Vallacher et al., 2013):

• It focuses on the longer-term patterns of multicultural conflict dynamics in social systems (e.g., organizations and communities) rather than on episodic or shorter-term interactions and outcomes.
• It recognizes that these patterns are affected by a complex, dynamic constellation of factors (attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, interactions, policies, structures, and so on) and suggests that actionable, high-impact solutions that are informed by an awareness of this complexity and dynamism can lead to constructive changes in the patterns.
• It emphasizes the emotional context of multicultural conflicts: the reservoirs of positivity and negativity that gather over time and shape the interests, thoughts, and actions of disputing groups and parties.
• It aims to increase the probabilities for more constructive and less destructive multicultural conflict patterns to emerge and stabilize in social systems.

DST suggests that all social systems, whether families, organizations, or nations, have two functional tasks: internal integration and external adaptation (Svyantek, 1997). Internal integration —coming together—helps to define what it means to be a member of a particular group or organization and provides a normative context for interaction within it. This occurs within ethnic groups, religious groups, socioeconomic classes, schools and universities, business organizations, cities and nations. Such integration makes it meaningful, purposeful, and predictable to act as a member of the group and affects feelings of identity, esteem, status, and inclusion (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Integration can result in social identities and group processes that are anywhere from open, flexible, complex, and inclusive to closed, rigid, simplistic, and exclusive (Coleman and Lowe, 2007; Roccas and Brewer, 2002). The values and norms espoused by the group are then replicated across different generations of members through processes of selection, socialization, sanctioning, and rewards (Schneider, Goldstein, and Smith, 1995), leading to more or less stable patterns of inclusive to exclusive interactions within and between groups.

In cultural and multicultural conflict, integration helps define what disputants most value, believe, and hold sacred as members of a group. Whether they value money and status, honor and dignity, or the care and feeding of the poor is largely defined by the types of families, groups, and organizations in which they were socialized and live in today. In other words, the degree to which people integrate and identify with their group memberships and the degree to which these identities are threatened determines their core concerns in intergroup conflict, particularly with regard to the fairness and respect their groups are shown relative to other groups (Crosby, 1984; Gurr, 1970; Pruitt, 2006; Pruitt and Kim, 2004, Runciman, 1966; Tyler and Smith, 1998). When these concerns are low, conflicts tend toward more negotiable resource conflicts (Rothman, 1997); when they are high, they tend toward more intractable identity conflicts; and when identity conflicts persist, they contribute to repositories for negativity between members of the groups, which can set the context for dramatic escalation of the conflict (see chapter 37 in this Handbook).

In contrast, processes of external adaptation allow people and groups to interact with their external environment in a manner that fits and thus enables them to survive and thrive in changing circumstances. In multicultural conflict, achieving external fit requires the skill and ability to employ strategies and tactics that are appropriate to a given conflict culture, which are determined by the expectations of the other party (i.e., their assumptions, styles, and preferences) and the norms, values, and constraints imposed by the broader environment (e.g. national culture or formal organizational roles). Employing a behavioral approach that is congruent with these demands places two requirements on the individual. First, one must be able to assess the demands of the situation, understanding what is appropriate in a given setting by attending to the relevant cues. Second is the ability to respond behaviorally in a way that is fitting with the situation. Failing to assess cultural differences and norms accurately or to respond in ways congruent with the situation can also lead to negative outcomes and consequences in conflict.

Both the internal and external concerns and pressures that act on individuals in multicultural conflicts have potential negative consequences. When driven by strong internal concerns for group integration, an individual may find himself or herself unresponsive to environmental cues and therefore employing conflict strategies that are ill fitting and inappropriate to the situation, potentially increasing tension in the relationship and escalating the conflict. Conversely, when an individual’s approach to conflict is buffeted purely by situational demands, their approach, while fitting, may be unnatural to the actor, be viewed as inauthentic by the other party, and lead, perhaps unnecessarily, to being unable to meet their individual goals (e.g., as one party is “forced” to accommodate the other party). Neither of these situations is optimal.

Thus, a tension exists. Problems can occur when an individual becomes too internally focused and rigid or consistently responds purely in a manner that is dictated by the situation. Therefore, we suggest developing the competencies and conditions for integrative adaptivity, which allow individuals and groups to strike a balance between honoring their values and identity, on the one hand, and constructively navigating the environment in which they operate, on the other. As Coleman, Kugler, Bui-Wrzosinska, Nowak, and Vallacher (2012) suggest, what is necessary and useful in dynamic conflicts is the capacity to be flexible while maintaining integrity, to move effectively between various conflict management strategies and tactics, while also achieving one’s own goals and maintaining a sufficient sense of integrity. As much of the literature in cultural psychology and conflict is about either lack of fit or lack of awareness of need for fit, our approach emphasizes the skills that contribute to adaptivity and fit. In addition, as the literature on multiculturalism emphasizes justice and fairness, our approach also places focus on the need for skills, processes, policies, and structures of accountability that are required for bringing about fair processes and outcomes.

We next elaborate on the micro- and macroskills, processes, and structures that research has identified as enhancing the four core components of the I-AM model: awareness, accuracy, adaptivity, and accountability (see table 27.1 for a summary of relevant strategies and interventions).

Table 27.1 I-AM-Inducing Strategies and Interventions at the Individual and Organizational Levels

Awareness

Awareness refers to the cultural assumptions, cultural rules, racial-ethnic identities, privilege, class, and other components of the worldview of ourselves and others.

Individual Level.

Awareness at the individual level requires the recognition of self, other, and contextual factors likely to play a role in multicultural conflicts. An individual should aim to become aware of his or her own cultural assumptions, values, and expectations and how these influence perception and behavior. For instance, an awareness of the impact and consequences of microaggressions, defined as “everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership” (Sue, 2010, p. 3), is critical. Research has documented the deleterious effects that microaggressive acts can have on individuals, including experiences of isolation, frustration, stress, and self-doubt (Solozarno, Ceja, and Yosso, 2000; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, and Solorzano, 2009), as well as feeling that their voices are being muted at work, resulting in frustration and anger (Meares, Oetzel, Torres, Derkacs, and Ginossar, 2004).

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 the 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 conflict regarding the exclusion of members based on sexual orientation gained heightened public attention after the US Supreme Court’s ruling in 2000 upheld the BSA’s legal right to ban openly gay individuals from participating as members or volunteers. The BSA’s argument for excluding gays is a heteronormative one in that the organization views homosexuality as inconsistent with its traditional moral values and feels the inclusion of gay individuals would inhibit the BSA’s ability to advocate and inculcate its beliefs in youth members. While the nation’s highest court has affirmed the BSA’s argument, public sentiment has increasingly assailed the institution’s membership requirements, leading to a proposed resolution that would allow openly gay youth as members but maintain the ban on participation of adult leaders and volunteers who are openly gay (BSA, 2013a). The BSA’s 1,400-member voting community voted in May 2013 to accept the new policy which will take effect on January 1, 2014 (BSA, 2013b). Varying positions on the issue abound and resonate with elements crucial to multicultural conflict. We explore the primary position of the BSA and how the organization could have engaged the conflict with greater awareness, accuracy, adaptability, and accountability.

We start with I-AM’s focus on awareness. Over the past twenty years, the BSA has been compelled to increase self-awareness as a result of objections to its exclusionary practices. Starting with the events leading up to the Supreme Court decision, when James Dale, a lifelong member of the BSA in New Jersey, was expelled from his duties as a scoutmaster for coming out as gay when he started college and subsequently filed a lawsuit, the BSA has intermittently needed to reflect on its core assumptions, beliefs, and values, which it has done and reaffirmed time and again. Arguably, however, this has been done in limited scope. For instance, has the organization considered in its awareness the full landscape of gay oppression within the United States? Within society, the LGBTQ community is typically not treated with helpfulness, friendliness, courtesy, or kindness, all explicit standards of conduct toward others in the Scout Law (BSA, 1911). From this perspective, the BSA could be perceived as violating the very tenets it seeks to uphold. Thus, if the BSA were to think about the application of its values and the implications of exclusion more broadly, perhaps it could have allowed a redefining of what it means to be “morally straight” as an individual participant and as an organization with a social mission.

The I-AM dimension of accuracy is also relevant in this conflict. As the BSA revisited its membership standards more critically over the past ten years, it has been difficult for its leaders to ignore the changing attitudes of Americans. To its credit with respect to accuracy and recognizing the increasing diversity of the nation and lifestyles, the organization itself commissioned research about American values in 1995 and in 2005 (BSA) as a means of assessing value change over time; however, the data do not reflect explicit attitudes regarding sexual orientation or values that might be directly related to it. Despite this lack of specific information, in 2000, following the Supreme Court’s decision, the BSA (2000), in an “Open Letter to America’s Families,” stated that its “values are consistent with the ideals embraced by most American families and are grounded in the tenets and teachings of the majority of the world’s religions. We believe an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law.”

Americans may still embrace BSA ideals broadly, but certainly the attitudinal tide regarding whether homosexuality is contradictory to these ideals is changing. According to one current poll, 63 percent of Americans are in support of ending the ban for youth, and 56 percent are in favor of allowing openly gay adult volunteers (Clement, 2013). Other aspects of accuracy, however, have probably not been so obvious to the organization and build on the BSA’s potentially limited awareness. As part of its investigation into the potential value conflict in having gay members, did the BSA challenge its own assumptions about homosexuality, gay culture, and the LGBTQ community? A thorough and accurate understanding of the group the BSA banned would have included seeking out information about the other from the other. Preconceived notions and negative stereotypes concerning LGBTQ individuals are pervasive. Deliberation regarding these assumptions as well as perceived value and lifestyle differences could have mitigated the harmful and unfair generalizations that likely played a role in determining the BSA’s policy.

The BSA’s revision of its standards also demonstrates the importance of adaptability. With declining membership linked to the organization’s resistance to inclusion along lines of sexual orientation (Arneil, 2010) and the cutting of funds by corporate donors (Dade, 2013), the BSA increasingly faces a reality that threatens its existence. Its recent attempt at flexibility, however, comes more than twenty years after James Dale publicized the conflict through litigation. When the organization found out about Dale’s sexual orientation through a newspaper article mentioning Dale’s leadership role in a gay and lesbian student group at his university, it immediately sent a letter to Dale revoking his membership (Hutchinson, 2001). Had the BSA had a culture that was adaptive and open to learning, it would have engaged Dale directly to explore the issue and employ creative problem solving. The time would have been ripe to reflect on entrenched patterns of assuming, believing, and being, but the organization’s rigid culture and celebrated reliance on tradition prevented it from even considering other responses as alternatives. With an orientation toward adaptivity, perhaps the organization’s membership standards would have changed long before now. Still, in its attempts to flex, the organization has used dialogue with its multiple stakeholders for nearly three years in coming to the current resolution (BSA, 2013a).

Finally there is the notion of accountability. The BSA has acknowledged greater accountability to the youth of America by proposing to end the ban. In its own words, the organization has justified the inclusion of gay youth by highlighting the vision “to prepare every [emphasis added] eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Scout Law,” noting that “youth are still developing, learning about themselves and who they are,” and that “the organization’s policies must be based on what is in the best interest of its young people, and the organization will work to stay focused on that which unites us” (BSA, 2013a, p. 8). Now that voting members have agreed to lift the ban on gay youth members, the integrity with which the new policy is implemented will be an additional test of the BSA’s commitment to accountability. The institution could do this by assessing the impact of its decision through surveys with current members and volunteers, including measures of climate, participation, and retention rates at multiple intervals to ascertain the BSA’s progression toward a more inclusive organization. There is also the question of whether and when the BSA will expand its level of consciousness to permit openly gay adult leaders and accept them as role models for youth, comparable in worthiness to heterosexual volunteers. It would require a reframing in leaders’ response to whom the BSA is accountable and how accountability is demonstrated in this environment.

Internal integration, rather than external adaptation, has been the priority for the BSA. The organization has stood, towering and immutable, firm in its core values and beliefs, but now finds itself necessarily in an awkward modern dance of fit, fairness, and integrity. Whether those in support of preserving BSA’s policy or those in support of breaking down barriers to participation, there seems to be uneasiness about this alteration in organizational identity. No one is completely satisfied, and things might get messier before they get better, but one should expect nothing less in this case of multicultural conflict. I-AM is not a recipe for resolution but a framework that respects and helps organize the inherent messiness of managing the tough multicultural issues we face in today’s world.

CONCLUSION

The eager and sincere vetting of multiculturalism as a framework for ensuring the recognition, value, and dignity of cultures has made it a viable approach to addressing sociocultural justice issues. Flawed yet attractive, it has advanced the conversation about culture and diversity to critical and nuanced effect. It has much to offer with respect to how we conceptualize, analyze, research, and practice conflict and its resolution. Our recommendation is to approach multicultural conflicts at the most provocative level, as we believe that working diligently through the accompanying discomfort and complexity will have the greatest positive impact for socially just outcomes. We hope that we have provided a realistic preview of multicultural conflict resolution’s strengths, weaknesses, and applications.

References

American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Arneil, B. (2010). Gender, diversity and organizational change: The Boy Scouts vs. Girl Scouts of America. Perspectives on Politics, 8 , 53–68.

Avruch, K. (2003). Type I and type II errors in culturally sensitive conflict resolution practice. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20 (3), 351–371.

Avruch, K., & Black, P. W. (1987). A generic theory of conflict resolutions: A critique. Negotiation Journal, 3 (1), 87–96.

Avruch, K., & Black, P. W. (1991). The culture question and conflict resolution. Peace and Change, 16 (1), 22–45.

Banks, J. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. Review of Research in Education, 19 , 3–49.

Boege, V. (2006). Traditional approaches to conflict transformation: Potentials and limits . Retrieved from http://www.berghof-handbook.net/uploads/download/boege_handbook.pdf

Boy Scouts of America. (1911). Scout oath and law . Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/Home/BoyScouts.aspx

Boy Scouts of America. (2000). An open letter to America’s families . Retrieved from http://communitylink.reviewjournal.com/lvrj/156/FSLO-989988365–292156.pdf

Boy Scouts of America. (2001). Summer camp outcomes study . Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/FILESTORE/marketing/pdf/02–448–1.pdf

Boy Scouts of America. (2005). Values of Americans: A study of ethics and character . Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/FILESTORE/marketing/pdf/02–849.pdf

Boy Scouts of America. (2010). 100 years in review, 1910–2010 . Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/210–031_WB.pdf

Boy Scouts of America. (2013a). Membership standards review . Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/filestore/MembershipStandards/310–561_WB.pdf

Boy Scouts of America. (2013b). Boy Scouts of America statement . Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/membershipstandards/resolution/results.aspx

Boy Scouts of America. (n.d.). Mission statement . Retrieved from http://www.scouting.org/About/AnnualReports/MissionVision.aspx

Brewer, M. (2007). The social psychology of intergroup relations: Social categorization, in-group bias, and out-group prejudice. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (2nd ed., pp. 695–715). New York: Guilford Press.

Brewer, M. B., & Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and out-group tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 , 428–437. doi:10.1177/0146167204271710

Burton, J. W., & Sandole, D.J.D. (1986). Generic theory: The basis of conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal, 2 (4), 333–344.

Canen, A. G., & Canen, A. (2008). Multicultural leadership: The costs of its absence in organizational conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19 (1), 4–19. doi:10.1108/10444060810849155

Carney, C. G. (1984). Building competencies for effective cross-cultural counseling: A developmental view. Counseling Psychologist, 12 (1), 111–119.

Castro, M. K. (2011). Organizational development of conflict resolution programs at the graduate level: A model and case study for multicultural competence . Working paper.

Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. M. Goldwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 553–587). New York: Guilford Press.

Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 , 749–780.

Clement, S. (2013, May 9). Most Americans support lifting ban on gay Boy Scouts. Washington Post . Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/05/09/most-americans-support-lifting-ban-on-gay-boy-scouts/

Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64 (3), 170–180. doi:10.1037/a0014564

Coleman, H. (1997). Conflict in multicultural counseling relationships: Source and resolution. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 25 (3), 195–200.

Coleman, P. T. (2011). The five percent: Finding solutions to (seemingly) impossible conflicts . New York: Public Affairs, Perseus Books.

Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K. G., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Nowak, A., and Vallacher. R. (2012). Getting down to basics: A situated model of conflict in social relations. Negotiation Journal, 28 (1), 7–43.

Coleman, P. T., & Lowe, J. K. (2007). Conflict, identity, and resilience: Negotiating collective identities within the Israeli and Palestinian diasporas. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24 (4), 377–412.

Combs, K. L., Gibson, S. K., Hays, J. M., Saly, J., & Wendt, J. T. (2008). Enhancing curriculum and delivery: Linking assessment to learning objectives. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (1), 87–102.

Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice . San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43 (6), 1241–1299.

Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27 (3), 371–386.

Dade, C. (2013, February 1). For some donors, Boy Scouts’ ban on gays doesn’t add up. NPR . Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2013/02/01/170773760/for-some-donors-boy-scouts-ban-on-gays-doesnt-add-up

Dessel, A., & Rogge, M. E. (2008). Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: A review of the empirical literature. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26 (2), 199–238.

Deutsch, M. (1995). Commentary: The constructive management of conflict: Developing the knowledge and crafting the practice. In B. B. Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch (pp. 123–132). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deutsch, M. (2005). Cooperation and conflict: A personal perspective on the history of the social psychological study of conflict resolution. In D. J. Tjosvold, M. A. West, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Deutsch, M. (2006). A framework for thinking about oppression and its change. Social Justice Research, 19 (1), 7–41.

Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (2006). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 , 5–18.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Faure, G. O. (1995). Conflict formulation: Going beyond culture-bound views of conflict. In B. B. Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch (pp. 39–57). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fowers, B. J., & Richardson, F. C. (1996). Why is multiculturalism good? American Psychologist, 51 (6), 609–621.

Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., Holcombe, K. M., Dyer, N., Ohbuchi, K.-I., & Fukuno, M. (2001). Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict: Interpretations of conflict episodes in the United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (6), 1059–1074.

Gorski, P. C. (2010, April). The challenge of defining “multicultural education.” Retrieved from http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/initial.html

Gurr, T. T. (1970). Why men rebel . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gutmann, A. (1993). The challenge of multiculturalism in political ethics. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22 (3), 171–206.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1), 96–107.

Hubbard, E. E. (2004). The diversity scorecard: Evaluating the impact of diversity on organizational performance . Boston: Elsevier, Butterworth Heinemann.

Hutchinson, D. L. (2001). “Closet case”: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and the reinforcement of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender invisibility. Tulane Law Review, 76 , 81–148.

Jackson, B., & Holvino, E. (1988). Multicultural organizational development (PCMA Working Paper Series No. 11). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Program on Conflict Management Alternatives.

Kang, S.-M., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Individual differences in emotional complexity: Their psychological implications. Journal of Personality, 72 (4), 687–726.

Kim-Jo, T., Benet-Martínez, V., & Ozer, D. J. (2010). Culture and interpersonal resolution styles: Role of acculturation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41 (2), 264–269.

Kimmel, P. (2006). Culture and conflict. In M. Deutsch, Peter T. C., & E. C. Marcus (Eds.) The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., . . . Thomas, D. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42 , 3–21.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

LeBaron, M., & Pillay, V. (2006). Conflict across cultures: A unique experience of bridging differences . Boston: Nicolas Brealey.

Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2000). High potentials as high learners. Human Resource Management, 39 , 321–330.

Marsh, C. (1997). Key concepts for understanding curriculum: Perspectives . London: Falmer Press.

McIntosh, P. (2001). White privilege and male privilege. In M. L. Anderson & P. H. Collins (Eds.), Race, class and gender . (pp. 95–105.) Lexington, KY: Cengage.

Meares, M. M., Oetzel, J. G., Torres, A., Derkacs, D., & Ginossar, T. (2004). Employee mistreatment and muted voices in the culturally diverse workplace. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32 (1), 4–27. doi:10.1080/0090988042000178121

Meyer, E. J. (2010). Gender and sexual diversity in schools: An introduction . New York: Springer.

Miall, H., Ramsbotham, O., & Woodhouse, T. (1999). Contemporary conflict resolution . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press:

Miller, K. P., Brewer, M. B., & Arbuckle, N. L. (2009). Social identity complexity: Its correlates and antecedents. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12 (1), 79–94. doi:10.1177/1368430208098778

Mooney-Cotter, A. (2011). Culture clash: An international legal perspective on ethnic discrimination . Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Nagda, B.R.A., & Zúñiga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup dialogues. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6 (1), 111–128.

Nowak, A., & Vallacher, R. R. (1998). Dynamical social psychology . New York: Guilford Press.

Okin, S. M. (1999). Is multiculturalism bad for women? In J. Cohen, M. Howard, & M. C. Nussbaum (Eds.), Is multiculturalism bad for women? (pp. 7–24). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/2585852

Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sensemaking in context. Academy of Management Executive, 14 (1), 65–77.

Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Academy of Management Journal, 36 , 641–662.

Prime, J., Foust-Cummings, H., Salib, E. R., & Moss-Racusin, C. A. (2012). Calling all white men: Can training help create inclusive workplaces? New York: Catalyst.

Pruitt, D. G. (2006). Some research frontiers in the study of conflict and its resolution. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59 (5–6), 377–391. doi:10.1007/s11199–008–9424–4

Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Is multiculturalism bad for African-Americans? Redefining inclusion through the lens of identity safety. In R. K. Tropp & L. R. Mallett (Eds.), Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 159–177). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Putnam, R. D. (2007), E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century—The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30 (2), 137–174.

Ramsey, V. J., & Latting, J. K. (2005). A typology of intergroup competencies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41 , 265–284.

Reynolds, M. (1998). Reflection and critical reflection in management learning. Management Learning, 29 , 183–200. doi:10.1177/1350507698292004

Richard, O. C., Murthi, B.P.S., & Ismail, K. (2007). The impact of racial diversity on intermediate and long-term performance: The moderating role of environmental context. Strategic Management Journal, 28 , 1213–1233.

Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 (2), 88–106. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01

Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving identity-based conflict in nations, organizations, and communities . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Runciman, W. C. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Salem, P. (1993). A critique of Western conflict resolution from a non-western perspective. Negotiation Journal , 9(4), 361–369.

Sampson, E. E. (1993). Identity politics: Challenges to psychology’s understanding. American Psychologist, 48 (12), 1219–1230.

Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Tausch, N., Cairns, E., & Hughes, J. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of social identity complexity: Intergroup contact, distinctiveness threat, and out-group attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35 (8), 1085–1098. doi:10.1177/0146167209337037

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48 (4), 747–773.

Sidanius, J, & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Pscyhology, 30 (4), 526–537.

Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69 (1), 60–73.

Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype threat and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Sue, D. W. (2008). Multicultural organizational consultation: A social justice perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60 (2), 157–169. doi:10.1037/0736–9735.60.2.157

Sue, D. W. (2010). Microagressions, marginality, and oppression: An introduction. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact (pp. 193–216). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sue, D., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70 (4), 477–486.

Svyantek, D. J. (1997). Order out of chaos: Nonlinear systems and organizational change. Current Topics in Management, 2 , 167–188.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. New Contexts of Canadian Criticism , 98–131.

Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74 , 65–77.

Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1998). Social justice and social movements. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & L. Gardner (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1–2, pp. 595–629). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Vallacher, R., Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2010). Rethinking intractable conflict: The perspective of dynamical systems. American Psychologist, 65 (4), 262–278.

Vallacher, R., Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Kugler, K., Bartoli, A., & Liebovitch, L. (2013). Attracted to conflict: The dynamic foundations of malignant social relations . New York: Springer.

Volpp, L. (2001). Feminism versus multiculturalism. Columbia Law Review, 101 (5), 1181–1218.

Wessendorf, S. (2010). The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices . London: Routledge.

Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., Solorzano, & G, D. (2009). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard Educational Review, 79 (4), 659–786.

Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (2), 308–315.