62 Cross Cultural Management

Hispanic Identity and Acculturation:

Implications for Management
Eric J. Romero

The Author
Eric J. Romero is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Management, Col-
lege of Business Administration, University of Texas - Pan American, Edinburg, TX
78539, USA

Introduction

The role that ethnicity and culture have played in influencing work experiences
for Hispanic personnel has been largely neglected in the management literature.
Given that the proportion of Hispanics in the United States is expected to increase
in the future (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), it is important to understand Hispanics
and how to effectively integrate them into teams, leadership positions and other
organizational roles. The extent to which Hispanic personnel are acculturated into
American society and culture will ultimately affect their productivity, integration
into work groups and career success. This study is designed to provide useful in-
formation about Hispanic culture, assess acculturation among the Hispanic popu-
lation, and offer suggestions that will help managers understand and better
integrate Hispanic personnel into their organizations.

Hispanic Culture

The definition of culture proposed by House, Wright & Aditya (1997) will be used
in this paper due to its thorough nature: “cultures are distinctive normative sys-
tems consisting of model patterns of shared psychological properties among mem-
bers of collectivities that result in compelling common affective, attitudinal, and
behavioral orientations that are transmitted across generations and that differenti-
ate collectivities from each other” (pp. 539-540). An important component of this
definition is the phrase “shared psychological properties” which refers to beliefs,
values, motives, assumptions, social identities and meanings given to collective
events, which can become cultural norms when shared among people in a culture.

Origins of Hispanic Culture

What is commonly referred to as Hispanic ethnicity in the United States is based

on Hispanic (Spanish speaking) Latin American culture. There is some debate as
to whether it is reasonable to use the term Hispanic Latin American culture be-
cause of the many countries that compose Latin America. Some would argue that
Volume 11 Number 1 2004 63

the diversity in cultural values and collective national experience is too great to
generalize. Those who hold this position believe that using national level cultures
is the only reasonable option. My position is that there is a set of common cultural
elements in Hispanic Latin America (Lozano, 1997), which constitute Hispanic
Latin American culture.

There is support for the notion of a Hispanic Latin American culture. Zea
(1963) uses the term “the Latin-American Mind” to describe the commonalities in
Latin American thinking. The commonalities in Latin American cultures are due to
the same mutual language and major religion (Catholicism) that they share as a
consequence of their common link to Spain (Zea, 1963) which contributed to
similar economic and colonial histories (Cardoso & Faletto, 1979). According to
Veliz (1980), the major cultural elements that Latin American cultures have in
common are centralist traditions regarding religion and government which are the
basis of Hispanic culture. The existence of a core of common cultural elements
within Hispanic Latin America does not indicate that all countries in this region
have the same culture (Veliz, 1980). Clearly there are cultural differences among
Latin American countries. My position is that the common Hispanic culture is at
the core of individual cultures in Latin America. Nonetheless, the existence of mi-
cro level cultures in Latin America does not remove the value of a macro perspec-
tive of Hispanic culture.

Characteristics of Hispanic Culture

There have been a number of studies that provide useful information about His-
panic culture. Hofstede (1980) found significant commonalities among Hispanic
Latin American cultures such as the tendency to be high in uncertainty avoidance,
power distance, collectivism and masculinity. The higher the level of uncertainty
avoidance in a culture, the less people feel comfortable with ambiguity, risk, and
uncertainty. Hofstede (1980) indicates that power distance is “the extent to which
a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distrib-
uted unequally” (p. 45). People in collectivist cultures tend to engage in group ac-
tivities. In the opposite type of cultures (individualistic), people believe that
individuals should be more self-sustaining. As indicated earlier, Hofstede found
that the Latin American countries he sampled are collectivist rather than individu-
alistic which is supported by Kagan (1997) and Triandis, Marin, Lisansky, &
Betancourt (1984). Hofstede (1980) found that four out of the six Latin American
countries that he studied were high in the masculine dimension, which measures
a culture’s dominant values regarding assertiveness and aggressiveness behavior.
Analogous to Hofstede’s (1980) work, Smith, Dugan and Trompenaars (1996)
found similar cultural scores for the Latin American countries (Argentina and
Mexico) that they sampled.

Offerman & Hellman (1997) provide additional information that can be

used in conjunction with Hofstede’s (1980) findings to reveal more about His-
64 Cross Cultural Management

panic culture. They discovered that power distance was negatively correlated with
leader approachability, delegation, team building, and communication. Con-
versely, uncertainty avoidance was positively correlated with leader control. Since
Latin American cultures are generally high in power distance and uncertainty
avoidance, it seems reasonable to expect Hispanic leaders to delegate and use
teams infrequently. Additionally, Hispanics leaders are likely to be authoritative
and directive because of their desire to avoid uncertainty. Hispanic followers are
likely to expect and prefer these leader behavior patterns for the same reason. In
fact, this leader and follower dynamic is consistent with Hispanic culture which
has been described as authoritarian (Albert, 1996) and paternalistic (Quezada &
Boyce, 1988).

Triandis, et al. (1984) indicate that Hispanics place substantial value on

close family ties. These family ties include what other cultures would refer to as
relatives, such as uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces, nephews and grandparents. His-
panics attach importance to harmony in social relationships and expect substantial
positive social behavior. This is supported by Kagan (1977) who found that His-
panics value cooperation. Additionally, although Triandis et al. (1984) found that
Hispanics are collectivists, their group orientation is activated in the family con-
text rather than at work. Similarly, Offerman & Hellman (1997) found that collec-
tivism was not significantly related to the utilization of work teams. Therefore, for
Hispanics, collectivism is primarily manifested in family groups instead of work re-
lated groups.

Euro-Americans

When comparing Hispanics to the majority population, one must define the major-
ity in a meaningful manner. White and Anglo are terms that are commonly used
to describe the majority group in the United States. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000) the term White is a race, not an ethnicity.
Therefore, using this term for the majority does not make sense since there are
many Hispanics who are White but still a minority. Therefore, using the term
White would lead to the misclassification of many Hispanics. The term Anglo is
accurate for people who are descendants of immigrants from England, Scotland,
Wales and Ireland. However, there are also people in the United States who are
descendants of immigrants from Russia, France, Lithuania and numerous other
European countries. Referring to them as Anglos is inaccurate. For these reasons, I
do not use the terms White and Anglo for the majority group and instead use the
term Euro-American because it reflects the true ethnic roots of the majority group
in the United States.

Hispanic Acculturation

Acculturation is a social process where individuals originating from a foreign

country adopt portions of their host country’s culture (Sam 2000, Triandis, 1994).
Volume 11 Number 1 2004 65

Other researchers (Berry, 1980; Berry, Trimble, & Olmedo, 1986; Hazuda, Stern,
& Haffner, 1988; Marin, 1992; Rogler, Cortes, & Malgady, 1991) suggest that ac-
culturation is a longitudinal and dynamic process in which individuals adopt, via a
continuum, at least two cultural identities. Individuals who have acculturated pos-
sess their minority culture and some majority cultural elements. In addition, indi-
viduals can accept or modify certain aspects of the new culture and that of their
original culture.

Berry (1980) proposes four different varieties of acculturation. Members of a

minority culture can adopt an assimilation, integration, rejection, or de-
culturation method of acculturation. The assimilation method of acculturation en-
tails a complete acceptance and adoption of the dominant society’s values with no
retention of their previous cultural identity. In addition, the assimilated minority
culture maintains a positive relationship to the majority society as a whole. An
ethnic group that selectively adapts to the majority culture characterizes the inte-
gration model of acculturation. The ethnic group retains some aspects of its cul-
tural identity while maintaining a positive relationship to the majority culture. In
the rejection model, minorities retain most aspects of their native cultural identity,
while in the deculturation model of acculturation, groups do not retain their na-
tive cultural identity. Berry (1980) states that the deculturation model results in a
situation where individuals lose their cultural identity and adopt an antagonistic
posture with respect to the majority culture. The rejection and deculturation mod-
els of acculturation are both similar because they describe ethnic minorities as not
maintaining a positive relationship to the majority culture.

Hispanic specific acculturation research provides additional insights into the

acculturation of Hispanics into American society. Hernandez, Cohen, and Garcia
(2000) found that 73% of Hispanics in their study were using the integration ap-
proach to acculturation. In contrast, a number of researchers have suggested that
Euro-American/Hispanic cultural differences will become increasingly insignifi-
cant as each successive Hispanic generation adopts American cultural values
(Knight and Kagan, 1977; Soto, 1983). This process is facilitated by English lan-
guage usage, media adoption, contact with English speaking friends and other so-
cial contact which is associated with a higher level of acculturation to American
culture (Marin and Marin, 1991). Hernandez et al. (2000) found that 91% of their
sample wanted to maintain Hispanic culture in their lives but they also wanted to
become an important part of the United States (74%). It seems likely that Hispan-
ics will ultimately adopt common American cultural attitudes (Buriel, 1975).

Based on my experience as a Hispanic, and with Hispanics, combined with

the literature reviewed, I believe that even Hispanics who were born and raised in
the United States will have a strong affiliation to Hispanic culture due to their par-
ent’s use of the integration approach to acculturation.
66 Cross Cultural Management

Hypothesis 1: Hispanics will have a strong attachment to their ancestral ethnicity

compared to Euro-Americans.
Methodology
The sample consisted of 591 participants from a university in the southwest
United States. The university has a significant number of Hispanics (approxi-
mately 45%), which facilitates the goal of assessing Hispanic acculturation to the
mainstream culture and a comparison to Euro-Americans. Most of the Hispanics
sampled were born and raised in the United States. The sample consisted of
52.5% males and 47.5% females with 61.1% of the sample between 20 and 22
years of age. Approximately a third of respondents had less than one year of work
experience, while approximately 26% of the sample respondents had more than
four years of full time work experience. The majority (60.8%) of subjects were
classified as sophomores in college. With respect to ethnicity, 62.3% of the sample
was Euro-American and 37.7% was Hispanic. Acculturation was measured using
one subscale (17 items) from the Scale of Ethnic Experience (SEE) (Malcarne,
Chavira, & Liu, 1996). The scale measures how strongly one feels affiliation to an
ethnic group and how much value an individual has for their ethnicity (Malcarne,
Chavira, Fernandez, & Liu, 2003). Higher mean scores indicate a stronger attach-
ment to the respondents’ ethnic group. Validity and reliability for the SEE has
been previously documented by Malcarne et al. (1996) with a Cronbach’s alpha of
.87.
Results
ANOVA was conducted based on ethnicity and the demographic variables meas-
ured. The results are presented in Table 1. There is support for hypothesis one
which states that Hispanics will have a strong attachment to their ethnicity com-
pared to Euro-Americans. There was a significant (F=95.928, p <.001) difference
in ethnic identity scores based on ethnicity. Hispanics had higher mean ethnic
identity scores when compared to Euro-Americans. There was no significant dif-
ference in ethnic identity mean scores based on gender, age, classification or years
of work experience.

Table 1
Acculturation ANOVA
Variable F statistic P value statistic
Ethnicity 95.928* .000
Gender 2.572 .109
Age 2.046 .106
Years of Work 0.144 .934
Classification 0.663 .575
*p<.01
Volume 11 Number 1 2004 67

Discussion

The results support the hypothesis that Hispanics are strongly attached to their
Hispanic identity. Their higher mean ethnic identity scores indicate that they
strongly identify with Hispanic culture despite being exposed to American culture.
Additionally, because most of the respondents were first or second generation His-
panics, the results reflect the generational attachment to Hispanic culture. Euro-
Americans, although descendants from countries in Europe, do not have strong
connections to their cultural roots. It appears that most people in the U.S. with
names such as Schmidt, Kowalski, and Smith have lost touch with the cultures of
their distant relatives from Germany, Poland and England.

Managerial Implications

Perhaps the most important implications of this study for management revolve
around the issue of workplace diversity. There are two conflicting views
concerning organizational diversity that are relevant to this study. Some research-
ers (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Lam, 1995; Thomas, 1993; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, &
Wormley, 1990) have found that diversity contributes to organizational effective-
ness by effectively integrating and utilizing employees from different ethnic back-
grounds. Cox (1991), for example, suggests that diversity in organizations is
inevitable and will provide a positive contribution. Organizations receive benefits
from becoming diverse, such as better decision-making, greater innovation and
creativity, and a greater ability to market to different ethnic groups. This positive
view of diversity implies that when Hispanics share common values and organiza-
tional goals with non-Hispanics diversity will lead to positive outcomes. Highlight-
ing shared minority and majority goals such as productivity and advancement
contributes to minority adaptation (Triandis, 1980; Ibarra, 1995; Watson, John-
son, & Zgourides, 2002; Mount, & Systma, 1997). An emphasis on common goals
is clearly something that managers can encourage with Hispanics by aligning or-
ganizational goals with personal goals (Lovelace & Rosen, 1996). Such goal align-
ment is done in Mexico where employees are motivated to stay with their
company because of medical care provided on-site at many assembly plants and
factories along the US border. In the United States, Hispanic goals can be aligned
with the organization’s goals by focusing on family security in terms of benefits
such as education and other family oriented programs. Focusing on similarities
between Hispanics and Euro-Americans is another option. Education, religion and
other demographic characteristics can be the basis for closer and better working
relationships. Researchers can design studies to explore the validity of these at-
tempts at goal alignment and discover the most important variables to use in this
process. Another implication for managers is that organizations must adopt diver-
sity management programs aimed at increasing awareness of the changing
workforce demographics, increasing sensitivity to different cultures, minimizing
discrimination in the workplace, and modifying organizational culture and leader-
ship practices. Researchers can design studies to detect if these practices are in
68 Cross Cultural Management

fact occurring. Some of this work has started (e.g. James, 2000; Sanchez & Brock,
1996). Soni (2000), for example, points out that organizations have adopted a
philosophy of actively encouraging workforce diversity. Researchers need to con-
duct studies that are specific to Hispanics and how they react to different diversity
approaches.

Other researchers have found that diversity is problematic in terms of the

more complex management skills that are required in diverse organizations and
the potential for increased interpersonal conflict. Ely and Thomas (2001), for ex-
ample, indicate that organizations can suffer from diversity in terms of decision-
making at the individual and group level. Cultural differences in organizations can
increase costs and prevent an efficient flow of information. The negative view of
organizational diversity implies that Hispanics who are strongly attached to their
ethnic identity are more likely to have interpersonal conflicts, related to differ-
ences in cultural values, with non-Hispanics. If organizations are interested in the
contributions that Hispanics can provide, management must address the potential
for conflict when employing Hispanics along with non-Hispanics. One possible
way to avoid conflict is to highlight the unique perspectives that Hispanics can
bring to an organization thereby increasing their value to coworkers and leaders.
Future researchers might be interested in discovering the level and types of cul-
tural differences that initiate conflict. Such studies would be valuable for mangers
and academics alike.

Conclusion

This study reveals that even second and third generation Hispanics have a strong
attachment to their ethnic identity and the results provide implications for manag-
ers and researchers alike. The United States is likely to experience a continued in-
crease in the number of Hispanics in the workforce. The effective utilization of
Hispanics in the United States depends on a higher-level understanding of His-
panic culture. This paper provides a starting point for mangers and researchers in-
terested in understanding this unique and growing segment of the population.
Volume 11 Number 1 2004 69

References

Albert, R. 1996. “A framework and model for understanding Latin American and
Latino/Hispanic cultural patterns”. In D. Landis & R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of
Intercultural Training, pp.327-348. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.

Berry, J. 1980. “Acculturation as a variety of adaptation”. In A.M. Padilla (Ed.),

Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings, pp.9-25. Boulder, CO: West-
view.

Berry, J. W., Trimble, J., & Olmedo, E. L. 1986. “Assessment of acculturation”. In

W. J. Loner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research, pp.9-25.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Buriel, R. 1975. “Cognitive styles among three generations of Mexican-American
children”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6: pp.417-429.
Cardoso, F. H., & Faletto, E. 1979. Dependence and development in Latin America.
Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Cox, T., Jr. 1991. “The multicultural organization”. Academy of Management Ex-
ecutive, 5(2): pp.34-47.

Ely, R.J., & Thomas, D.A. 2001. “Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity
perspectives on work group processes and outcomes”. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 46(2): pp.229-273.

Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W.M. 1990. “Effects of race on or-
ganizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes”.
Academy of Management Journal, 33(1): pp.64-86.

Hazuda, H. P., Stern, M.P., & Haffner, S. M. 1988. “Acculturation and assimilation
among Mexican Americans: Scales and population-based data”. Social Science
Quarterly, 69: pp.687-706.

Hernandez, S. A., Cohen, J. F., & Garcia, H. L. 2000. “Hispanic acculturation: Con-
ceptual and modeling issues”. Journal of Applied Business Research, 16: pp.73-82.

Hofstede, G. 1980. “Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theo-

ries apply abroad?” Organizational Dynamics, 9: pp.42-63.

House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R.N. 1997. “Cross-cultural research on or-
ganizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory”. In P. C. Earley
& M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives in international industrial organizational psy-
chology, pp.535-625. New Lexington: San Francisco.

Ibarra, H. 1995. “Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial

networks”. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3): pp.673-703.
70 Cross Cultural Management

James, E. H. 2000. “Race-related differences in promotions and support: underly-

ing effects of human and social capital”. Organization Science, 11(5): pp.493-508.

Kagan, S. 1977. “Social motives and behaviors of Mexican-American and Anglo

children”. In J. L. Martinez (Ed.), Chicano psychology, pp.45-86. New York: Aca-
demic.

Knight, G. P., & Kagan, S. 1977. “Acculturation of prosocial and competitive be-
haviors among second-and third-generation Mexican-American children”. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8: pp.273-284.

Lam, A.1995. “Building integrated workforces across national borders: the case of
British and Japanese engineers”. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment, 6(3): pp.508-527.

Lozano, E. 1997. “The cultural experience of space and body: A reading of Latin
American and Anglo American comportment in public”. In A. Gonzalez, M. Hous-
ton, & V. Chen (Eds.), Our voices: Essays in culture, ethnicity, and communication,
2nd ed., pp.95-202. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Lovelace, K., & Rosen, B. 1996. “Differences in achieving person-organization fit

among diverse groups of managers”. Journal of Management, 22(5): pp.703-722.

Malcarne, V. L., Chavira, D.A., Fernandez, S., & Liu, P-J. 2003. “The Scale of Eth-
nic Experience: Development and Psychometric Properties”. Manuscript submitted
for publication.

Malcarne, V. L., Chavira, D.A., & Liu, P. 1996. The scale of ethnic experience: A
measure for use across ethnic groups. Paper presented at the meeting of the Ameri-
can Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.

Marin, G. 1992. “Issues in the measurement of acculturation among Hispanics”. In

K. Geisinger (Ed.), Psychological testing of Hispanics, pp.235-251. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Marin, G., & Marin, B. V. 1991. Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Mount, M.K., & Systma, M. R. 1997. “Rater-ratee race effects in developmental

performance ratings of managers”. Personnel Psychology, 50(1): pp.51-69.

Offerman, L. R., & Hellman, P. S. 1997. “Culture’s consequences for leadership be-
havior: National values in Action”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28:
pp.342-351.

Quezada, F., & Boyce, J. 1988. “Latin America”. In R. Hath (Ed.), Comparative
Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Volume 11 Number 1 2004 71

Rogler, L. H., Cortes, D. E., & Malgady, R. G. 1991. “Acculturation and mental
health status among Hispanics”. American Psychologist, 46: pp.585-597.

Sam, D. L. 2000. “Psychological adaptation of adolescents with immigrant back-

grounds”. Journal of Social Psychology, 140: pp.5-25.

Sanchez, J.I., & Brock, P. 1996. “Outcomes of perceived discrimination among

Hispanic employees: Is diversity management a luxury or a necessity?” Academy of
Management Journal, 39(3): pp.704-719.

Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. 1996. “National culture and the values
of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations”. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27: pp.231-264.

Soni, V. 2000. “A twenty-first-century reception for diversity in the public sector: a

case study”. Public Administration Review, 60(5): pp.395-408.

Soto, E. 1983. “Sex-role traditionalism and assertiveness in Puerto Rican women

living in the United States”. Journal of Community Psychology, 11: pp.346-354.

Thomas, D.A. 1993. “Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships”.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2): pp.169-194.

Triandis, H. C. 1980. “A theoretical framework for the study of bilingual-bicultural

adaptation”. International Review of Applied Psychology, 29: pp.7-16.

Triandis, H. C. 1994. Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Triandis, H. C., Marin, G., Lisansky, J., & Betancourt, H. 1984. “Simpatia as a cul-
tural script of Hispanics”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47:
pp.1363-1375.

United States Census Bureau. 2000. Profiles of General Demographic Characteris-

tics, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.

Veliz, C. 1980. The centralist tradition of Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Watson, W.E., Johnson, L., & Zgourides, G.D. 2002. “The influence of ethnic di-
versity on leadership, group process, and performance: an examination of learning
teams”. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(1): pp.1-16.

Zea, L. 1963. The Latin-American mind. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma

Press.