introduction to the special issue on culture, race, and ...

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 2008, Vol. 60, No. 2, 133–138

Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association and the Society of Consulting Psychology 1065-9293/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0736-9735.60.2.133

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE ON CULTURE, RACE, AND ETHNICITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY Stewart Cooper

Frederick T. L. Leong

Valparaiso University

Michigan State University

The need to strongly and directly address issues related to the rapidly changing culture, race, and ethnicity mix of workers, managers, customers, and services recipients in the United States and throughout many parts of the world is now essential. On the macro level, this need is associated with a society in the United States that will soon reach the “tipping point” whereby non-male, non-Anglo, non–Western European culture, race, and ethnicity will have as prominent an effect as has male, Anglo–Western European culture for the past 250 years (Steward, 1996). Moreover, with all the movements that are “flattening our world” in so many ways, such issues are paramount internationally as well (O’Roark, 2002). On the micro level, the increases in cultural, racial, and ethnic diversity rapidly taking place in most U.S. and global organizations and industries, whether profit or non-profit and manufacturing or service oriented, demand significant attention from those practicing consulting psychology if they wish to practice competently and effectively (Hoppe, 1998; Mullin & Cooper, 2002). For the purposes of this special issue, we use the definitions for culture, race, ethnicity, and multiculturalism/diversity from the Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists (American Psychological Association, 2002). Culture is defined as the belief systems and value orientations that influence customs, norms, practices, and social institutions, including psychological processes (language, care-taking practices, media, and educational systems) and organizations (media and educational systems; Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998). Inherent in this definition is the acknowledgment that all individuals are cultural beings and have a cultural, ethnic, and racial heritage. Culture has been described as the embodiment of a worldview through learned and transmitted beliefs, values, and practices, including religious and spiritual traditions. It also encompasses a way of living informed by the historical, economic, ecological, and political forces on a group. These definitions suggest that culture is fluid and dynamic and that there are both cultural universal phenomena as well as culturally specific or relative constructs. The biological basis of race has, at times, been the source of fairly heated debates in psychology (Fish, 1995; Helms & Talleyrand, 1997; Jensen, 1995; Levin, 1995; Phinney, 1996; Rushton, 1995; Sun, 1995; Yee, Fairchild, Weizmann, & Wyatt, 1993). Helms and Cook (1999) noted that race has no consensual

Stewart Cooper, Counseling Services, Valparaiso University; Frederick T. L. Leong, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stewart E. Cooper, ABPP, Valparaiso University, Counseling Services, 826 La Porte Avenue, Valparaiso, IN 46383. E-mail: [email protected]

133

134

COOPER AND LEONG definition and that, in fact, biological racial categories and phenotypic characteristics have more withingroup variation than between-groups variation. The definition of race is considered to be socially constructed rather than biologically determined. Race, then, is the category to which others assign individuals on the basis of physical characteristics, such as skin color or hair type, and the generalizations and stereotypes made as a result. Thus, “people are treated or studied as though they belong to biologically defined racial groups on the basis of such characteristics.” (Helms & Talleyrand, 1997, p. 1247) The term ethnicity does not have a commonly agreed upon definition, similar to the concepts of race and culture. We refer to ethnicity as the acceptance of the group mores and practices of one’s culture of origin and the concommitant sense of belonging. We also note that— consistent with Brewer (1999), Sedikides and Brewer (2001), and Hornsey and Hogg (2000); individuals may have multiple ethnic identities that operate with different salience at different times. The terms multiculturalism and diversity have been used interchangeably to include aspects of identity stemming from gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or age. Multiculturalism, in an absolute sense, recognizes the broad scope of dimensions of race, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, gender, age, disability, class status, education, religious/spiritual orientation, and other cultural dimensions. (American Psychological Association, 2002, pp. 8 –9)

The definition of race given previously may be overly narrow. Specifically, race also has an important socially constructed meaning for the person. It is often a highly significant aspect of identity and serves as a basis for belonging and connection as well as rejection and distancing. It is important to note that the call for consultants to address issues of culture, race, and ethnicity is not completely new. As early as 1970, Caplan pointed out that having un-addressed cultural variables could have negative effects on the consultation process (Caplan, 1970). Ramirez, Lepage, Kratochwill, and Duffy (1998) pointed out that “consultants almost inevitably provide services to individuals who are different from themselves and their culture of origin” (p. 479). More strongly, Rosenfield (2002) articulated that failure to address cultural differences has a high probability of impairing the effectiveness of the consultation. Sue (1998) discussed the need for consultants to balance approaches that are emic (behavior or a belief in terms meaningful (consciously or unconsciously) to the individual that is culture specific) with etic (behavior or belief by an observer, in terms that can be applied to other cultures, that are culturally neutral). Both emic and etic approaches require a high level of culture-specific expertise. Similarly, Gibbs (1980) argued that understanding the sociocultural forces affecting the consultee and the consultee system is essential. Some authors have begun to attempt to address the above. Dougherty (2006), in his well-regarded book on consultation theory and practice, argued that skills in dealing with cultural diversity are one of eight skill sets essential for competent consultants. Dougherty cited Ramirez et al.’s (1998) list of nine skills associated with practicing psychologically based consultation in a culturally competent manner, and Flanagan and Ortiz (2002) provided an even more expanded list. Similarly, Ortiz and Flanagan (2002) provided resources and suggestions for interventions, including consultation, with people from different cultures. Mullin and Cooper (2002), who adopted a model developed earlier by Chasnoff and Muniz (1989), presented a six-factor model to facilitate the delivery of culturally competent consultation. Factor 1 involves an in-depth awareness of self, the consultee, and the consultee system as cultural beings. Factor 2 relates to possessing the technical and professional skills required to work in a manner congruent with the consultee or consultee systems’ cultures. Factor 3 focuses on understanding the factors beyond culture— including economics, racism, international relations, organizational health, sexism, and agism— that affect the consultee and the consultee system. Factor 4 identifies the need both to understand one’s own culture and its impact on one’s personal and professional beliefs,

SPECIAL ISSUE

135

values, and behaviors and to possess the skills to behave flexibly so to have greater alignment with the skills of the consultee. Factor 5 relates to the extent that one’s own culture and the culture of the consultee or the consultee system is multicultural or monocultural and the complex effects this has on interactions between individuals, groups, and organizations. Factor 6 is the development of knowledge, attitudes, and skills that assist in focusing non-judgmentally and helpfully on the culture of the consultee and consultee system. In the end, this entails advancing from awareness to acceptance to valuation of macro- and microcultural, racial, and ethnicity differences. Whaley and Davis (2007) defined cultural competence as “a set of problem solving skills that includes (a) the ability to recognize and understand the dynamic interplay between heritage and adaptation dimensions in culture in shaping human behavior; (b) the ability to use the knowledge acquired about an individual’s heritage and adaptational challenges to maximize the effectiveness assessment, diagnosis, treatment; and (c) internalization of this process of recognition, acquisition, and use of cultural dynamics so that it can be routinely applied to diverse groups” p. 565). The main conclusion of their analysis is that “a compelling case can be made on socio-demographic, clinical, ethical, and scientific grounds for cultural competence in the delivery of [psychologically-based] services” (Whaley & Davis, 2007, p. 566). Few would argue that issues of culture competence in organizational consulting are important. However, how much have earlier consultants’ and scholars’ discussions of diversity in consulting actually been heeded or received? And what is the status of consultants’ practices with respect to culture, race, and ethnicity challenges? Unfortunately, a recent informal survey of practicing organizational consultants who were members of the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Division 13, the Society for Consulting Psychology, found that the majority have very limited education, training, or supervised practice in dealing with the cultural, racial, and ethnic issues that impinge on the delivery of effective organizational consulting psychology (Greg Pennington, personal communication, January 2007), and very little data has been collected on this topic. The goal of this special issue is to provide further conceptual and practical resources that will contribute to greater effectiveness of consultations when consultants, consultees, and client systems involve diverse culture, race, and ethnicity. Specifically, this special issue consists of five articles by P. Romney, D. Sue, F. Leong and J. Huang, S. E. Cooper (with contributions from K. Wilson-Starks, A. M. O’Roark, G. Pennington, and D. Peterson), and R. Thomas. Each of these articles focuses on four common questions: (1) In your experience in consulting, what have been the major challenges posed by culture, race, and ethnicity? (2) How have you dealt with these challenges? (3) Have you developed any conceptual or theoretical models to guide you in this work? (4) Given your expertise, what advice and recommendations would you offer to your fellow consultants as they deal with these challenges? All five articles rely on a variety of narrative-related writing methods, including case examples, biographical stories, and vignettes in narrative form. Such types of writing rely on methodology congruent with the APA Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists.. “Culturally centered psychological researchers are encouraged to seek appropriate grounding in various modes of inquiry and to understand both the strengths and limitations of the research paradigms applied to culturally diverse populations” (APA, 2002, p. 41). These five articles are followed by the presentation of an extensive category-clustered bibliography of publications on this topic. The remaining part of this introduction presents a brief synopsis of the five lead articles. Some of these focus directly on diversity consulting (when the request is to

136

COOPER AND LEONG

address diversity issues in the organization) and others on diversity issues as they arise in the course of consulting. The lead piece by Patricia Romney, a piece that focuses on diversity consulting, uses an inviting style of writing to help the reader look at five key factors in successful diversity consulting: (a) becoming culturally competent, (b) doing comprehensive work, (c) sustaining oneself and one’s clients, (d) balancing content and process, and (e) working for both social justice and the common good. Subsequent to providing an excellent delineation of the context, this is achieved by presenting five “challenges” for which the challenge and then a response are presented. Challenge 1 is “Getting Ourselves Up To Speed.” Challenge 2 is “Diversity Anorexia”. Challenge 3 is “Sustaining Ourselves and Our Clients.” Challenge 4 is “Balancing Process and Content”. Challenge 5 is “Getting To We.” Derald Sue, also focusing on diversity consulting, provides a social justice perspective on multicultural organizational consultation. He argues that such consultation inherently possesses a strong social justice component, because its aim is to remove barriers to equal access and opportunity in organizations for all participants. In presenting this social justice perspective, Sue articulates four aspects of multicultural organizational consultation that need attention: (a) the need for a conceptual framework, (b) the need to confront the sociopolitical systems of power and privilege inherent in organizations, (c) the need for the consultant to understand his or her own worldview in relation to other diverse worldviews of others, and (e) the need to integrate the roles and tasks in facilitating difficult dialogues on race, gender, and sexual orientation. At its core, the social justice perspective of Sue’s approach is needed to challenge the power and privilege of organizational policies and practices that oppress marginalized groups and perpetuate disparities. Fred Leong and Jason Huang’s article focuses more on diversity issues as they emerge during the consultation process. Their article addresses the four questions guiding this special issue with a focus on regarding challenges and useful conceptual models based on Leong’s consulting experiences. Their article is divided into four segments. The first through third segments summarize the PC and the CAM models separately and then present an integrated conceptual model for multicultural consultation. The fourth and final segment then provides a discussion of some of the consultation experiences of Leong to illustrate the model’s effectiveness. Stewart Cooper used a collaborative model in presenting core common themes of multiculturally informed counsultation. With the aim of providing a number of conceptual and pragmatic tools that can assist consultants in improving their multicultural consultation, he invites four highly experienced organizational consultants to address the four questions of this special issue: The four participants– Karen Wilson-Starks, Ann O’Roark, Greg Pennington, and David Peterson – each address the questions and offer their experiences and recommendations regarding multicultural consulting. In a second section, Cooper analyzes the common themes covered by all four as overall recommended strategies for consultants to improve their cultural competence in consulting. The article by Roosevelt Thomas also focuses on diversity as it may play out during consultation. His article is a personally revealing piece in which he dynamically intertwines personal reflections on his family and educational life and his work history and the development of his particular approach of assisting others, gained through embracing diversity, which he labels Strategic Diversity Management TM. The title of his contribution—Consulting in the Midst of Differences, Similarities, and Related Tension and Complexities—and the title of his most recent book—Building on the Promise of Diversity: How We Can Move to the Next Level in Our Workplaces, Our Communities, and Our

SPECIAL ISSUE

137

Society (Thomas, 2006)— convey both the challenge of the work and the promise of growth if pursued with diligence and positive intent. The final contribution is a category-clustered bibliography assembled by Leong, Cooper, and Huang. This bibliography, while not exhaustive, should serve as a useful resource for those wishing to use journal and book resources to augment their knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to consulting when consultant, consultee, and client system differ on salient factors of culture, race, or ethnicity. We would like to end by thanking Rodney Lowman, editor of Consulting Psychology Journal, for his vision and support of this special issue. Just like the recently held conference organized by APA Division 13 on Multicultural Consultation, Leadership, and Diversity: Inclusion, Inspiration, and Implication, it is our hope that this special issue will continue to stimulate discussion and theory building concerning the consultation enterprise in our increasingly culturally diverse society, which is embedded in a highly globalized world community.

References American Psychological Association. (2002). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists.Washington, DC: Author. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429 – 444. Caplan, G. (1970). The theory and practice of mental health consultation. New York: Basic Books. Chasnoff, R., & Muniz, P. (1989). The cultural awareness hierarchy: A model of OD intervention in cross-cultural settings. In W. Sikes, A. Drexler, & J. Gant (Eds.), The evolving practice of organizational development. Alexandria, VA: National Training Lab Institute of Applied Behavioral Science. Dougherty, A. M. (2006). Psychological consultation and collaboration in school and community settings. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Fish, J. M. (1995). Why psychologists should learn some anthropology. American Psychologist, 50, 44 – 45. Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2 (4th ed., pp. 915–981). New York: McGraw-Hill. Flanagan, D. P., & Ortiz, S. O. (2002). Best practices in intellectual assessment: Future directions. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 1351–1372). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Gibbs, J. T. (1980). The interpersonal orientation in mental health consultation: Toward a model ethnic variations in consultation. Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 195–207. Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: Theory and process. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Helms, J. E., & Talleyrand, R. M. (1997). Race is not ethnicity. American Psychologist, 52, 1246 –1247. Hoppe, M. H. (1998). Cross-cultural issues in leadership development. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156. Jensen, A. R. (1995). Psychological research on race differences. American Psychologist, 50, 41– 42. Levin, M. (1995). Does race matter? American Psychologist, 50, 45– 46. Mullin, V., & Cooper, S. (2002). Cross-cultural issues in international organizational consultation.

138

COOPER AND LEONG

In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organizational consulting psychology (pp. 545–561). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. O’Roark, A. M. (2002). International consulting psychology: Issues in assessment and intervention. In. R. L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of consulting psychology (chap. 21, pp. 516 –544). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ortiz, S. O., & Flanagan, D. P. (2002). Best practices in working with culturally diverse families and children. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 337–351). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Phinney, J. S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51, 918 –927. Ramirez, S. Z., Lepage, K. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Duffy, J. L. (1998). Multicultural issues in school-based consultation. Conceptual and research considerations. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 479 –509. Rosenfield, S. A. (2002). Best practices in instructional consultation. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 609 – 623). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Rushton, J. P. (1995). Construct validity, censorship, and the genetics of race. American Psychologist, 50, 40 – 41. Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Individual self, relational self, collective self. Philadelphia: Brunner–Routledge. Steward, R. J. (1996). Training consulting psychologists to be sensitive to multicultural issues in organizational consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal, 8, 180 –189. Sue, S. (1998). In search of cultural competence in psychotherapy and counseling. American Psychologist, 53, 440 – 448. Sun, K. (1995). The definition of race. American Psychologist, 50, 43– 44. Thomas, Jr, R. (2006). Building on the promises of diversity: How can we move to the next level in our workplaces, our communities, and our society? New York: AMACOM. Whaley, A. L., & Davis, K. E. (2007). Cultural competence and evidence-based practice in mental health services: A complementary perspective. American Psychologist, 62, 563–574. Yee, A. H., Fairchild, H. H., Weizmann, F., & Wyatt, G. E. (1993). Addressing psychology’s problem with race. American Psychologist, 48, 1132–1140. Received December 13, 2007 Revision received March 26, 2008 Accepted March 26, 2008 䡲