Interactions between cultural group affiliation and the use of electronic communications technology: an initial research program.

Schneider, Gary P. ; Barcena, Carmen M. ; Bruton, Carol M. 等

INTRODUCTION

The paper begins with a discussion of how electronic communications have grown in recent years and some of the problems that researchers have identified with increasing use of these modes of communication. The paper then outlines the changes in U.S. work force composition expected over the next two decades. After defining terms such as culture and diversity, the paper examines culture-communication style issues that arise when the communication mode shifts from face-to-face communications to electronic communications. The paper concludes with an identification of research questions and an outline of research methods that might effectively address those questions.

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES

U.S. firms are increasing their use of software products that provide electronic communication and meeting capabilities (Wall Street Journal, 1995). These communications technologies offer alternatives to face-to-face meetings for managers information gathering, strategy formulating, and decision making activities. Firms are combining activities under the umbrella of intranets that institutionalize these trends (Derfler, 1996) Considerable research on the dehumanizing aspects of information and communication technologies does exist (e.g., Marx, 1990; Zuboff, 1988) as does research on the effectiveness of such technologies for specific tasks (e.g., McLeod and Liker, 1992; Zack, 1993). However, the interaction between cultural group identities and the effectiveness with which employees use these communications technologies remains unexamined.

Electronic communication technologies include electronic mail (E-mail), file transfer software, and various other kinds of groupware. E-mail sent via the Internet is no longer the esoteric tool of research scientists, librarians, and other academicians; it has become ubiquitous in business, government, and not-for-profit organizations throughout the world. By the end of 1994, the U.S. had 41 million E-mail users sending some 18 billion messages per year (Burns, 1995). Currently available E-mail software packages allow users to attach files to the text messages (Hutchinson and Sawyer, 1996). These files may include spreadsheets, formatted text documents, databases, graphics even digitized audio or video clips.

E-mail software is one example of a category of software products called groupware. Groupware products allow people to communicate, work together, share information, and coordinate decision making. In addition to E-mail, Haag and Keen (1996) identified six types of groupware: group scheduling software, electronic meeting support software, white board simulation software, video conferencing software, workflow automation software, and electronic data interchange (EDI) products.

IMPLICIT WORLD VIEWS AND FRAMING

With the exception of video conferencing software, all of these products remove the visual cues that are an important part of human-to-human information transfer (Beamer, 1991; Limaye and Victor, 1991). Many of these technologies implicitly assume that users share a common world view. Ibrahim (1991, p. 14) defines world view as a set of cultural variables that mediate and directly affect the assumptions, modes of problem solving, decision making, and conflict resolution that individuals bring to bear on workplace tasks. Other researchers (e.g., Bostrom, 1984; Heinen, 1977) have used the term frames to capture a similar sense of world view. Goffman (1974) used the term frame to describe any filter through which an individual perceives the world and constructs an interpretation of its meaning.

Analysts and engineers bring their own frames and world views to bear when they design the features of these new work-enabling technologies. Differences between the designers frames and the users frames can lead to a number of problems (Leitheiser and Fouad, 1992).We propose that differences among users cultural backgrounds can create similar problems. We also believe that inconsistencies among users world views of communications received, communications composed, the organization of activities, and ordering of activities can all contribute to ineffective communication that can impair the quality and effectiveness of work activities.

Some research suggests that primary and secondary education in the U.S. affords non-dominant cultural group members insufficient software (Taylor and Munfield, 1991) and hardware (Boozer, et al., 1992) exposure. Since computer hardware and software are key components of emerging electronic communication technologies, non-dominant cultural group members may face an educational deficit as they develop work and management skills. This deficit can induce computer anxiety, which researchers have found can impair computer task performance (Heinssen, et al., 1987; Igbaria and Chakrabarti, 1990; Premkumar, et al., 1993).

CHANGES IN U.S. WORK FORCE DEMOGRAPHICS

Over the next two decades, the U.S. work force will expand more slowly than at any time since the 1930s. The work force growth rate will be approximately half of that during the 1970s (Saveri, 1991). In contrast, the growth rates for non-dominant cultural groups will be much higher: For example, Hispanic-Americans participation in the work force will increase by 75%. This group will also have a much lower median age, 26, than Anglos median age of 39 (DOL, 1991; Johnston and Packer, 1987; Ponterotto and Casas, 1991).

Such changes occurring at a time when the infusion of electronic communications technology is increasing supports our proposed examination of culture-technology interactions. Managers who will use, supervise, plan, and implement the communication technologies of the present and the future must become sensitive to the ways a culturally diverse labor force will use these technologies.

CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND HETEROGENEOUS ORGANIZATIONS

Many definitions of culture, cultural diversity, and heterogeneity in organizations exist. In this section, we develop and justify working definitions for these terms.

Keesing (1974) argues that culture provides individuals with implicit theories about behavior in various situations and helps them to interpret others behavior. Individuals learn these cultural theories through socialization. Each individual does not necessarily learn the theories exactly as others learn them, but most culture members absorb similar general principles. Therefore, each culture provides its own set of implicit behavior theories to its members. This set of implicit behavior theories varies across cultures. Hofstede (1980) and Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) have identified dimensions that researchers can use to isolate and organize similarities and differences in implicit behavior theories across cultures (Gudykunst, et al., 1996).

Researchers have identified the individualistic-collectivistic cultural dimension as the most useful in comparing behavioral theories across cultures (e.g., Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988; Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961; Parsons and Shils, 1951; Triandis, 1988, 1990, 1995). Both individualistic and collectivistic tendencies exist in all cultures; however, in most cultures one dimension dominates (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988). For example, individualistic cultures place more emphasis on individuals goals than on group goals. Collectivistic cultures do the opposite; they value group goals over individual goals (Triandis, 1988). Persons socialized in individualistic cultures tend to value independence, achievement, and perceive themselves to be unique individuals. Members of collectivistic cultures value harmony, solidarity, and see themselves as interconnected with others in the culture (Gudykunst et al., 1996).

In current management literature the definition of diversity includes differences in race, gender, national origin, ethnicity, and geographic origin (Cox and Blake, 1991; Fernandez, 1991; Jackson, 1992; Jamieson and O'Mara, 1991; Loden and Rosener, 1991; Thomas 1991). Therefore, we define cultural diversity in this paper as differences in persons world views based on race, gender, national origin, ethnicity, and geographic origin that yield behavioral differences across groups (Ting-Toomey, 1993; Triandis, 1972). Shared sets of behavior allow individuals from a culture to identify with each other in relation to other cultural groups (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Giles and Coupland, 1991; Giles and Johnson, 1987; Tajfel and Turner, 1979).

The increase in the number of culturally diverse individuals entering the work force challenges organizations to manage a more heterogeneous work force effectively. Managing these more-heterogeneous work forces can provide significant challenges (Milliken and Martins, 1996). Hoffman and Maier (1961), McLeod and Lobel (1992), and Watson, et al. (1993) have all found that heterogeneous work forces offer a greater range of perspective and more high-quality solutions than less diverse groups. However, heterogeneous work forces are less well-integrated, which leads to higher dissatisfaction and turnover levels and less tendency to identify with the organization (Jackson, et al., 1991; O'Reilly, et al., 1989; and Wagner, et al., 1984).

Milliken and Martins (1996) found dissatisfaction in the work place across many kinds of diversity: age, gender, race, ethnicity, and tenure. The consistency of this dissatisfaction suggests that a structural variable exists that pressures members of non-dominant cultures to leave organizations (Schneider, 1987). A diversified organization, besides offering variety and creativity, also achieves the democratic ideal of equal representation and access to power (Milliken and Martins, 1996). Organizations that seek to diversify their work forces must provide a more diversity-friendly work environment that encourages members of non-dominant cultures to stay. One way to accomplish this is to understand how culture affects the work environment. Barcena and Schneider (1996) argue that a research program such as the one outlined in this paper can contribute to the understanding and maintenance of a more heterogeneous work place.

RESEARCH ISSUES--COMMUNICATION STYLES ACROSS CULTURAL GROUPS

As individuals are socialized, they learn the patterns of behavioral interaction that predominate in their culture. These patterns of behavioral interaction are the basis for individual communication styles (Gudykunst et al., 1996). Differences in communication styles correlate highly with the variation in common symbols, values and norms across cultures (Baugh, 1983; Collier and Thomas, 1988; Davies and Harre, 1983; Gudykunst, 1994; Kochman, 1981; Triandis, 1972). Cultural identities are communicated through style, rules, shared meaning and sometimes even with dialects and languages (Larkey, 1996).

Researchers have used various theories to explain differences in communication styles. For example, Gudykunst and Ting Toomey (1988) found that members of individualistic cultures prefer different communication styles than members of more collectivistic cultures.

Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) and Hall (1976) offer one way of explaining this cultural communication preference. Hall (1976) states that differences in communication styles are based on the difference between low-context and high-context communication. Low-context communication is the use of explicit and direct messages in which meanings are contained mainly in the transmitted message (Gudykunst et al., 1996, p. 511). In high-context communication, the meanings are embedded in the person or in the sociocultural context (Gudykunst et al., 1996, p. 511). Hall (1976) contends that members of all cultural classifications use both communication styles but one style predominates in a particular culture. Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) assert that low-context communication predominates in individualistic cultures and high-context communication predominates in collectivistic cultures.

Low-context communicators messages are direct, precise, and open; high-context communicators use and interpret messages that are not explicit, minimize their use of verbal messages, and demonstrate sensitivity to others (Gudykunst et al., 1996). Grice (1975) identified four characteristics that help distinguish low-context from high-context communication modes: quantity, quality, relevance, and manner. In low-context communication, individuals would: tailor the quantity of information they provide to the perceived listener s needs, state only high-quality information supported by sufficient evidence, contribute only relevant information to the conversation, and would deliver this information in a clear, non-ambiguous, organized manner.

A specific example of the quality characteristic in a low-context speaker would be speaking one s mind and telling the truth the reflection of a sincere and honest individual (Hofstede, 1991). In contrast, openness is not characteristic of high-context communication. High-context communicators get to know each other by offering group-based information that allows the listener to predict their behavior (Gudykunst et al., 1996). High-context communicators feel it is much more important to maintain harmony in the group than to state their feelings and opinions frankly.

Grice (1975) explains the quantity characteristic in low-context communication as the ability to be precise. High-context communicators use understatement and silence (Okabe 1983). Competent high-context communicators use silence as a communicative act rather than mere void in communication space (Lebra, 1987, p.243). Low-context communicators sense silence as a void to be filled (Mare, 1990).

Low context communicators speak in a direct, explicit manner; high-context communicators transmit implicit, indirect messages (Grice, 1975). High-context communicators transmit indirect and ambiguous messages that may appear irrelevant to what others have said in the conversation.

Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey s (1988) argument that low-context and high-context communicators predominate respectively in individualistic and collectivistic culture has been supported by other research. Frymier, et al. (1990) found that members of individualistic cultures base their behavior more on their feelings; that is, they are more affect-oriented. Gaetz, et al. (1990) found that persons from individualistic cultures were more inclined to talk than members of collectivistic cultures.

Kim (1994) concluded that persons from collectivistic cultures were concerned with others' feelings and feared imposing on others more than members of individualistic cultures. Kim (1994) found that persons from individualistic cultures were more concerned with clarity in conversation. Kim and Wilson (1994) discovered that members of individualistic cultures need clarity to have effective communication and prefer using direct requests to accomplish goals. They found that direct requests are the least effective communication method in collectivistic cultures for achieving similar goals.

The need to maximize clarity in individualistic cultures serves the individualistic goals of meeting personal needs (Wheeler, et al., 1989), being task oriented (Triandis, et al., 1986), maximizing the satisfaction of individual interest (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961), and subordinating others' goals to one's own (Triandis et al., 1986). Strategic competence in individualistic cultures means maximizing the outcome or effectiveness and minimizing the effort or clarity of interactions (Kim 1994). Yum (1988) elaborated on the relationship between the outcome focus of individualistic culture members and their communication styles, stating: "The main function of communication is to actualize autonomy and self-fulfillment; the outcome of the communication is more important than the process" (p. 381). Collectivistic culture members engage in face-saving behaviors such as avoiding hurting the hearer's feelings, minimizing imposition, and avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer, rather than using efficient and direct communication styles (Kim, 1994).

This section of the paper has discussed the relationships between cultural values and preferred communication styles. Hofstede (1980) proposed and Bochner and Hesketh (1994) confirmed that comprehensive cultural values impact the work place, we propose a research program to study the effect of cultural values on another kind of communication, electronic communication.

RESEARCH METHOD--FOCUS GROUPS

We propose using focus groups in the first stage of the research program. Focus groups are frequently used in qualitative marketing research and have their origins in the social sciences (Morgan, 1988). Morgan argues that focus groups can provide a self-contained means of collecting data alone or in combination with other qualitative and quantitative methods.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FOCUS GROUPS

Morgan (1988) notes that focus groups combine two methods of conducting qualitative research, individual interviews and participant observation, to form a third method. Each of these three methods has specific strengths and weaknesses. Focus groups, as an intermediate method, have some of the strengths and weaknesses of the other two methods.

Focus groups have the advantage of being comparatively easy to conduct. Focus groups do not require a natural setting, as does participant observation; they allow researchers to explore topics and generate hypotheses in new areas of research more easily than do interviewing techniques that require the researcher to offer greater personal direction; and they let researchers collect data about group interactions that may reveal insights that participants casual conversation or responses to direct questions would not provide (Morgan, 1988).

The weaknesses of the focus group method derive from the same elements that provide its strengths. For example, the interaction in focus groups gives researchers less control over data generated than they can exert in individual interviews. The multiple-person setting of focus groups precludes researchers from extrapolating observations to individual behavior.

Since this research will be the first study of the interactions between the use of electronic communications and cultural group membership, we believe that focus groups can help us identify dimensions that will provide the basis for future research. Focus groups allow the researchers to control the discussion topic but allow the participants to take the discussion in directions that concern them. We believe that follow-on studies using interviews and surveys can extend the preliminary results to individual behavior. Also, focus groups can help us compare different points of view that participants offer during the discussion so we may examine motivation with a degree of complexity that is typically not available with other methods (Morgan and Krueger, 1993, p. 16). We also believe that the research topic will interest the focus group participants. Morgan and Krueger (1993) state that the researchers interest in the topic and the participants ability to discuss it are both essential to the successful outcome of the focus group. The researchers believe that because of the tremendous growth of electronic communication use in education and business, the participants will be familiar with and interested in the topic.

The first focus group participants will be university students. The groups will include three distinct cultural groups, Hispanic, Asian, and Anglo. Because each focus group will be culturally homogeneous, the researchers believe that the comfort level and willingness of participants to express their opinions will be high. Of these cultural groups, the Anglo is considered a very high individualistic culture, especially the United States Anglo culture; the other two cultural groups are considered collectivistic cultures and are about at the same level on Hosfstedes (1983) Individualism/ Collectivism Dimension Index Score.

We expect to identify a number of interactions between use of electronic communications technology and cultural characteristics through the focus group discussions and analysis of the focus group transcripts. Once we have identified these characteristics we will be able to construct laboratory experiments that test hypotheses about technology-culture interactions using these characteristics as treatments and outcome measures. We believe the results of the focus groups will suggest many interesting individual research projects in a program of study dedicated to learning more about how culture interacts with individuals comfort and effectiveness in using electronic communications technology.

REFERENCES

Asante, M. K. and W. B. Gudykunst, Eds. 1989. Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ashforth, B.E., and Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 20-39.

Atkinson, D. R., G. Morten, and D. W. Sue. 1993. Counseling American Minorities: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Fourth Edition. Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.

Barcena, C. M. and Schneider, G. P. 1996. Hispanic managers communicating electronically in Anglo businesses: Potential interaction between culture and technology. The Digital Revolution: Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science Mid-Year Meeting, (May), 42-52.

Baugh, J. 1983. Black street speech: The history, structure, and survival. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Beamer, L. 1991. Learning intercultural communication competence, Journal of Business Communication, 29, 285-303.

Boozer, M. A., A. B. Krueger, and S. Wolkon. 1992. Race and school quality since Brown v. Board of Education. Brookings Papers: Macroeconomics, 269-338.

Bostrom, R. P. 1984. Development of computer-based information systems: A communication perspective, Computer Personnel, 9(4), 17-25.

Bostrom, R. P. 1989. Successful application of communication techniques to improve the systems development process, Information and Management, 16, 279-295.

Burns, N. 1995. E-mail beyond the LAN, PC Magazine, (April 22), 102-108.

Carter, R. T. 1991. Cultural values: A review of empirical research and implications for counseling, Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 164-173.

Chinese Culture Connection. 1987. Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-146.

Collier, M. J., and Thomas, M. 1988. Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Theories in Intercultural Communication, Y.Y. Kim and W. B. Gudykunst, eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 99-122.

Cortina, R. J. and A. Moncada. 1988. Hispanos en los Estados Unidos. Madrid: Instituto de Cooperacion Iberoamericana.

Cox, T. H. Jr., and Blake, S. 1991. Managing cultural diversity: Implication for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive , 5, 45-56

Davies, B., and Harre, R. 1983. Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20, 43-63.

Department of Labor (DOL). 1991. Occupational Outlook Quarterly. Washington, DC: Department of Labor.

Derfler, F. J. 1996. The intranet platform: A universal client? PC Magazine, (April 23), 105-114.

Diaz-Guerrero, R. and L. B. Szalay. 1991. Understanding Mexicans and Americans: Cultural Perspectives in Conflict. New York: Plenum.

Ferdman, B. M. and A. C. Cortes. 1992. Culture and identity among Hispanic managers in an Anglo business. In Hispanics in the Workplace, S. B. Kouse, P. Rosenfeld, and A. L. Culberston, eds. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 246-277.

Fernandez, J. P. 1991. Managing a diverse workforce: Regaining the competitive edge. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Frymier, A., Klopf, D., and Ishii, S. 1990. Japanese and Americans compared on the affect orientation construct. Psychological Reports, 66, 985-986.

Gaetz, L., Klopf, D., and Ishii, S. (1990, June) Predispositions toward verbal behavior of Japanese and Americans. Paper presented at the Communication Association of Japan convention, Tokyo.

Giles, H., and Coupland, N. 1991. Language: Contexts and consequences. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

Giles, H., and Johnson, P. 1987. Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psychological approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the sociology of Language, 68, 66--99.

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics:.3 Speech Acts, P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds. (pp. 107-142). New York: Academic Press, 107-142.

Gudykunst, W. B. 1991. Bridging Differences: Effective Intergroup Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W.B. 1994. Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W.B., and Ting-Toomey, S (with Chua, E). 1988. Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Tsukasa, N., Kim, K. and Heyman. S. 1996, (June). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures, Human Communication Research, 22, 4, 510-543.

Haag, S. and P. Keen. 1996. Information Technology: Tomorrow's Advantage Today. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hall, E. T. 1976. Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.

Harris, P. R. and R. T. Moran. 1991. Managing Cultural Differences. Third Edition. Houston: Gulf.

Heinssen, R. K., Jr., C. R. Glass, and L. A. Knight. 1987. Assessing computer anxiety: Development and validation of the computer anxiety rating scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 49-59.

Hoecklin, L. 1995. Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive Advantage. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hoffman, L.R., and Maier, N.R.F. 1961. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 401-407.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. 1983, Fall. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 75-89.

Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hutchinson, S. E. and Sawyer, S. C. 1996. Computers and Information Systems. Chicago: Irwin.

Ibrahim, F. A. 1991. Contribution of cultural world view to generic counseling and development, Journal of Counseling and Development, 70(1), 13-19.

Igbaria, M. and A. Chakrabarti. 1990. Computer anxiety and attitudes towards microcomputer use. Behavior and Information Technology, 9, 229-241.

Ivey, A. E., M. B. Ivey, and L. Simek-Morgan. 1993. Counseling and Psychotherapy: A Multicultural Perspective. Third Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Jackson, S. E. 1992. Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse work force. In Group Process and Productivity, S. Worchel, W. Wood, and J. A. Simpson, eds. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 138-176.

Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., and Peyronnin, K. 1991. Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675-689.

Jamieson, D., and O Mara, J. 1991. Managing Workforce 2000: Gaining the Diversity Edge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnston, W. B. and A. H. Packer. 1987. Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

Keesing, R. 1974. Theories of culture, Annual Review of Anthropology, 3, 73-79.

Kim, M. S. 1994. Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21, 128-151.

Kim, M. S., and Wilson, S. R. 1994. A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting. Communication Monographs, 61, 210-235.

Kluckhohn, F., and Strodtbeck, F. 1961. Variations in Value Orientations. New York: Row, Peterson.

Knouse, S. B., P. Rosenfeld, and A. L. Culbertson, Eds. 1992. Hispanics in the Workplace. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kochman, T. 1981. Black and White Styles in Conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Larkey, L.K. 1996. Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse workgroups, Academy of Management Review, 21( 2), 463-491.

Lebra, T. S. 1987. The cultural significance of silence in Japanese communication. Multilingua, 6, 343-357.

Leitheiser, R. L. and N. A. Fouad. 1993. An exploration of the role of diverse cultures on the information requirements determination process. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems, (December), 35-45.

Limaye, M. R. and D. A. Victor. 1991. Cross-cultural business research: State of the art and hypotheses for the 1990s, Journal of Business Communication, 28, 277-299.

Loden, M., and Rosener, J.B. 1991. Workforce America! Managing Employee Diversity As a Vital Resource. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.

Mare, L.D. 1990. Ma and Japan. The Southern Communication Journal, 55, 319-328.

Marin, G. and B. V. Marin. 1991. Research with Hispanic Populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Marx, G. T. 1990. The case of the omniscient organization, Harvard Business Review, March-April, 12-30.

McLeod, P. L. and J. K. Liker. 1992. Electronic meeting systems: evidence from a low structure environment, Information Systems Research, 3, 195-223.

McLeod, P. L., and Lobel, S.A. 1992. The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small groups. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 227-231.

Milliken, F. J., and Martins, L.L. 1996. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups, Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402-433.

Moore, J. and H. Pachon. 1985. Hispanics in the United States. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Morgan, D. L. 1988. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Morgan, D. L., and Krueger, R.A. 1993. When to use focus groups and why. In Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, D. L. Morgan ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 3-20.

O Reilly, C.A., Caldwell, D. F., and Barnett, W. P. 1989. Work group demography, social integration and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21-37.

Okabe, R. 1983. Cultural assumptions of East and West: Japan and the United States. In Intercultural Communication Theory, W. Gudykunst, ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 2144.

Parsons, T., and Shils, E. 1951. Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ponterotto, J. G. and J. M. Casas. 1991. Handbook of Racial/Ethnic Minority Counseling Research. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.

Premkumar, G., K. Ramamurthy, and W. R. King. 1993. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(3), 373-398.

Ramirez, A. 1988. Racism toward Hispanics: The culturally monolithic society, In Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy, P. A. Katz and D. A. Taylor, eds. New York: Plenum, 137-158.

Saveri, A. 1991. Realignment of workers and work in the 1990s. In New Directions in Career Planning and the Workplace, J. Kummerow, ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.

Singer, M. R. 1987. Intercultural Communication: A Perceptual Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Szapocznik, J., M. A. Scopetta, M. A. Arranndale, and W. Kurtines. 1978. Cuban value structure: Treatment implications, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 961-970.

Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, W. G. Austin and S. Worchel, eds. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 33-47.

Taylor, H. G. and L. Mounfield. 1991. An analysis of success factors in college computer science: High school methodology is a key element. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(2), 240-245.

Thomas, R. R., 1991. Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total work force by managing diversity. New York: American Management Association.

Ting-Toomey, S. 1993. Communication resourcefulness: An identity negotiation perspective.

In R. L. Wiseman and J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural Communication Competence: 72-111. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. and F. Korzenny, Eds. 1991. Cross-Cultural Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Triandis, H. C. 1972. The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.

Triandis, H. C. 1990. Cross-cultural studies of individualism-collectivism. In J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989, 37, 41-133. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Triandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview

Triandis, H. C., 1988. Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural psychology. In Cross-Cultural Studies of Personality, Attitudes and Cognition, G. Verma and C. Bagley, eds. London: Macmillan, 60-95.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Leung, K., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, C., Marin, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J., Verma, J., Spangenberg, J., Touzard, H., and de Montmollin, G. 1986. The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 257-267.

Wagner, G. W., Pfeffer, J. and O Reilly, C. A. 1984. Organizational demography and turnover in top-management groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 74-92.

Wall Street Journal. 1995. Groupware or webware? (November 7), A1.

Watson, W. E., Kumar, K. and Michaelsen, L.K. 1993. Cultural diversity s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590-602.

Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., and Bond, M. H. 1989. Collectivism-individualism in everyday social life: The middle kingdom and melting pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 79-86.

Yum, J. O. 1988. The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, 374-388.

Zack, M. H. 1993. Interactivity and communication mode choice in ongoing management groups, Information Systems Research, 4, 207-239

Zuboff, S. 1988. In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. New York: Basic.

Gary P. Schneider, University of San Diego

Carmen M. Barcena, University of San Diego

Carol M. Bruton, University of San Diego

John L. Marambio, University of San Diego