Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Co-Cultural Communication in T
Co-Cultural Communication in T
by
Barbara Hidleburg-Johnson
Copyright 2022
University of Phoenix
Committee:
_________________________
Michael Raphael
_________________________
Linda Florence
_________________________
Derek Rohde
_________________________
Hinrich Eylers, PhD
Vice Provost, Doctoral Studies
University of Phoenix
2/17/2022
Date Approved: ____________
ABSTRACT
reflecting the various populations of workers in 21st Century America. Leaders and
American females. The study added uniqueness and provided a significant benefit of
groups. Using two existing instruments, the researcher conducted a quantitative study
Scale and a Job Satisfaction Survey were used to determine if any relationship existed
between the independent and dependent variables. In examining three research questions
and multiple hypotheses, the results revealed that non-assertiveness links employee
iii
disengagement. In contrast, neither assertive nor non-assertive is linked to dissatisfaction.
However, both assertive and non-assertive are connected to the conflict variable.
iv
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation work to my loving parents, T. L. and Lucy Chambers, and my
favorite brother Carl Hidleburg. They are no longer of this world. However, their
encouragement, prayers, and comfort remain in my heart. My husband and friend Jimmie
L. Johnson, Jr., with the patience of a saint, has toiled with me. I also dedicate this
dissertation to the prayer warriors, pastors, friends, and church mothers who persevered
with me throughout life and the process. I will always appreciate all that everyone has
done to help me on this journey. I dedicate this work and give special thanks to my
Nelson and Denise Cook Leason for holding me up by lending their ears when I needed
to talk through challenges during times when I felt like giving up.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
California: Sacramento -- Doye Sivils, Fresno – Herman Barreto; and Bob Bohling--
Capital Christian Counseling Center Sacramento, California; the women’s bible study
organizations that supported my efforts in different ways, e.g., Blacks in Government and
Federally Employed Women; and finally, Shayla Black-Johnson for her talented skills in
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................ v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................... vi
Hypotheses ............................................................................................................ 28
Co-cultural Communication.................................................................................. 34
vii
Organizational Behavior ....................................................................................... 38
Definition of Terms............................................................................................... 41
Assimilation .......................................................................................................... 42
Co-cultural Communication.................................................................................. 42
Culture................................................................................................................... 42
Diversity ................................................................................................................ 43
Navigate ................................................................................................................ 46
Negotiate ............................................................................................................... 46
Rationalization ...................................................................................................... 48
Separation ............................................................................................................. 48
viii
Workplace Conflict ............................................................................................... 49
Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 50
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 51
Delimitations ......................................................................................................... 52
ix
Diversity and Diversity Inclusion ....................................................................... 100
Sample................................................................................................................. 125
x
Job Satisfaction Survey ....................................................................................... 134
Appendix A: Tables A1–A4 and Sections 1-3 CCC Resources ......................... 203
Table A1: CCC Practices and Orientations Summary (26 Items) ...................... 204
xi
Table A2: CCC Strategies--Approaches--Preferred Outcomes (35 Items)......... 208
............................................................................................................................. 232
Appendix E: Informed Consent Participants 21 Years of Age and Older ......... 235
Appendix J1: Approval to Use the CCC Questionnaire--Lapinski & Orbe........ 246
Appendix J2: Approval to use the CCC Questionnaire--Rudick et al. ............... 247
xii
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY.................................................................................... 259
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3. Correlation Matrix and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients for Study Variables ...149
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Environments .....................................................................................................................93
Selection. ..........................................................................................................................133
Figure 3. The Likert-type Scaled Response Job Satisfaction Items Selection .................134
Figure 4. Normal P-P Plot for Regression Predicting Disengagement (Assimilation) ....151
(Assimilation) ..................................................................................................................151
Figure 8. Normal P-P Plot for Regression Predicting Conflict (Separation) ...................157
(Separation) ......................................................................................................................158
xv
PREFACE
2022 after starting nearly ten years ago. As a military spouse to a United States Marine
for more than 38 non-consecutive years, I raised two sons, a Jimmie Johnson, III a United
States Airman and Tommie Johnson an Executive Chef. I have two amazingly talented
through this long journey. My tenure in multiple federal agencies and my Christian
Child Therapy and Industrial and Organizational Psychology, and a Bachelor of Science
me to my innate passion in life to help and give of myself to the vast communities that
nurtured me. Co-Cultural Communication opened a door, and I glimpsed a need within
thankful for the professors who did not give up on me during the life-changing events I
and Committee Members, thanks, and may God forever bless each of you.
Barbara Hidleburg-Johnson reared in Gulfport, MS, and residing in Fresno, CA, in March
2022.
xvi
Chapter 1
Introduction
(Castle Bell et al., 2015; Brannick, 2014; Martin & Nakayama, 2015; Seibert et al., 2002;
Wiggins, 2012; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). A survey of more than 1,000 employees
indicated that while organizational leaders expended nearly 80% of the workday on
exchange of meaning to ensure the receiver understands the sender’s message. Thus,
many authors (DeKay, 2012; Odine, 2015; Perkins, 2008; Rajhans, 2012; Seibert et al.,
success recognized as the art and science of sending and receiving information or
communication as the “ideal speech situation” (Deetz, 2001, p. 45). Thus, effective
Gkorezis et al., 2015; Odine, 2015). The study conducted by Odine (2015) revealed that a
1
leader’s interactions as perceived by subordinate employees is essential in building the
employees’ relational identity with the organization (Eisenberger et al., 2010; Meares et
al., 2004). Relational identity created through LMX affects employee behavior in terms
The frequency and quality of LMX and interactions between the leader and
organizational support (Neves & Eisenberger, 2012; Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017;
Shoss et al., 2013). Certain scholars determined that the employees’ perception of
organizational citizenship behavior and commitment (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Omilion-
relational identity is based mostly on the employee’s perception stemming from a work
culture where open communication is the norm. Also, the work climate or environment is
one where employees from ethnically diverse and multicultural backgrounds feel
acceptance and diverse inclusivity (Cubbage, 2018; Downey et al., 2015; Hayes-Thomas
a climate in which nonverbal communication gestures (e.g., visual contact, head nodding
2015, p. 1007) in relationship identity. Gkorezis et al. (2015) pointed out that verbal and
2
LMX, Goldman and Myers’ (2015) study revealed that an employee’s ability to
interaction between the leader and the employee. As stated previously, effective
organizational leader and an employee (Gkorezis et al., 2015; Goldman & Myers, 2017).
organization depends on the degree of comfort the employee feels with the LMX
et al. (2015), Liu et al. (2010), Odine (2015), and Orbe (2016b) posited that effective
LMX occurs where awareness of personal filters and emotions exist when engaging in
intentionally or unintentionally (Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Odine, 2015; Richard et al.,
2013; Wing Sue, 2010). Regarding the experience of some organizations, Gkorezis et al.
(2015), Groysberg and Slind (2012), Odine (2015), and Osborne and Hammoud (2017)
found that a less than optimal LMX negatively influenced employee engagement, job
workplace, albeit as an outsider from within (Cubbage, 2018; Han & Price, 2017;
Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Liu et al., 2010; Murugavel & Somaraju, 2016; Orbe, 1998a,
1998b, 2016a, 2016b; Orbe & Harris, 2015). Orbe (1998a) defined an outsider within as
3
minority or marginalized individuals integrating into the workplace where marginalized
and adaptation to the quality of communication demonstrated in the workplace (Liu et al.,
2010), along with the perceived organizational support (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Omilion-
Hodges & Baker, 2017; Shoss et al., 2013), and diversity inclusion (Cubbage, 2018;
Richard et al., 2013; Riggio, 2018), with known or inconspicuous constraints (Allison &
Hibbler, 2004; Orbe, 1996, 1998; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Parker, 2002). Inconspicuous
invisible constraints put forth by Hendrix and Wilson (2014) concerns the workplace
The constraints also involve the oppressive and suppressive silencing of the
people of color in corporate America (Hendrix & Wilson, 2014). Allison and Hibbler
cultures, including the dominant and non-dominant culture groups. Allison and Hibbler
(2004) and Buzzanell (1999), like Hendrix and Wilson (2014), recognize the dominant
culture as setting the communication parameters and interactions, thereby possessing the
inherent and inequitable power over the subordinates or traditionally marginalized people
(Ahmed et al., 2010; Averbeck-Lietz, 2013; Brannick, 2014; Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012).
The literature gap stems from individuals with different cultures (Ahmed et al., 2010;
4
interactions occur in and increase in workplaces where dominant culture group members
Brodbeck, 2014; Martin & Nakayama, 2015; Orbe, 1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2016;
Seibert et al., 2002; Singh, 2010; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). The non-dominant group
members negotiate identity and navigate the workplace to achieve success. A discussion
First, Zirulnik and Orbe (2019) conducted a research study with two female
African-American airline transport pilots in the United States of America. The co-cultural
The dominant culture group members (White males) dominate as pilots of a large group
of legacy carriers in the industry (Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Of some 20 African-American
female pilots working with the group of five United States “legacy carriers,” two made
up .015% of the cumulative total of approximately 90 female pilots (Zirulnik & Orbe,
2019, p.88). The study included 10% of 20 pilots fitting the study demographics. The
building” (Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019, p. 87) represents accommodation as the preferred
Researchers defined strategic alliance building “as instances when co-cultural group
members make the conscious decision to gain esoteric social alliances from dominant co-
cultural group members within the organization through strategized interaction(s) that
have predetermined intent and goals” (Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019, p. 87).
The second example represents several sources as follows. Allison and Hibbler
(2004), Buzzanell (1999), and Hendrix and Wilson (2014) conducted studies revealing
5
the dominant culture group members establishing the communication culture or climate
that the dominant culture group controls epistemology’s research agenda without the non-
dominant culture group members’ perspectives. Several researchers (Allison & Hibbler,
2004; Buzzanell, 1999; Camara & Orbe, 2010; Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Hendrix &
Wilson, 2014) agreed with the categories and labels assigned to the non-dominant culture
person of color. Other discussions and examples of the dominant culture group members
occur in Chapter 2 of this dissertation. The dominant culture group bears the following
labels in the non-exhaustive list: Caucasian, European, and White or White heterosexual
employees (Coughlin, 2014; Meares et al., 2004; Richard et al., 2013; Rudick & Golsan,
2016). Enriching diversity by integrating different cultures into various workplaces is not
Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013). Although the term diversity combined with inclusion
creates diversity inclusion, co-cultural and cross-culture do not share vernacular in this
6
communication strategies align with communicative and organizational behaviors
communication (Gillet et al., 2017; Jiong & Men, 2017; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017;
Richard et al., 2013; Shuler et al., 2016). Diversity inclusion involves the quality of LMX
interactions (Cubbage, 2018; Liu et al., 2010; Odine, 2015; Omilion-Hodges, & Baker,
2017; Sherbin & Rashid, 2017), and the employees’ perceived organizational support
from the leaders (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Neves & Eisenberger, 2012; Omilion-Hodges
job satisfaction (Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017). Literature supports the finding of
increased job satisfaction resulting from high levels of the quality and frequency of LMX
(Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017; Robles, 2012; Shoss et al., 2013). Employees’
through employees’ performance (Ahmed et al., 2010; Gillet et al., 2017; Groysberg &
Slind, 2012; Keyton et al., 2013; Odine, 2015; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017; Perkins
2008; Richard et al., 2013). Ahmed et al. (2010), DeKay (2012), Odine (2015), and Orbe
and Roberts (2012) indicated the opposite, where ineffective or poor communication
7
occurred. A leading cause of ineffective communication in a culturally diverse workplace
from different cultural backgrounds and groups (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017; Scott,
2013; Seibert et al., 2002). Castle Bell et al. (2015), Odine (2015), Osborne and
Hammoud (2017), and Steele and Plenty (2014) indicated ineffective communication in
productivity (Odine, 2015; Rajhans, 2012; Seibert et al., 2002). However, DeKay (2012),
Odine (2015), Rajhans (2012), Richard et al. (2013), and Wiggins (2012) indicated a
communication can lead to engaged and satisfied employees and help reduce workplace
conflict (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017; Rajhans, 2012; Richard et al., 2013; Shuler et al.,
2016).
2012; Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1998; Jones et al., 2017; Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017;
Osborne & Hammoud, 2017; Rajhans, 2012; Richard et al., 2013). For example, the non-
8
in communicative interactions with dominant culture group members (Ahmed et al.,
behavioral, and emotional status (Cohen, M., & Avanzino, 2010; Odine, 2015; Orbe &
Roberts, 2012; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017; Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013). Co-cultural
and employees has pronounced psychological and physiological effects (Benjamin &
Simpson, 2009; Brown & Roloff, 2015; Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Riggio, 2018; Shuler,
2016).
beginning with a background of the problem. After that, the problem statement, purpose,
and significance of the study, nature and methodology of the study, research questions
assumptions, limitations, and delimitations collectively form the introduction to this study
negotiation and navigation in the workplace (Allen, 2007; Castle Bell et al., 2015;
Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Mammen & Sano, 2012; Mills, 2009; Murphy, 1998; Shoss et
9
al., 2013). Co-cultural communication can inform organizational communication,
inclusion (Ahmed et al., 2010; Castle Bell et al., 2015; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Liu et al.,
2010; Mammen & Sano, 2012; Meares et al., 2004; Mills, 2009; Rudick & Golsan, 2016;
Shoss et al., 2013; Spector, 1997). Co-cultural communication in this study is not used
increase employee engagement and job satisfaction while mitigating for conflict (Ahmed
et al., 2010; Meares et al., 2004; Odine, 2015; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017; Rajhans,
2012; Richard et al., 2013; Steel & Plenty, 2014). However, not recognizing cultural
& Orbe, 2010; Castle Bell et al., 2015 DeKay, 2012; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). The
American workplace includes individuals from differing cultures, and message confusion
communication strategies.
managers and employees, stemming from cultural differences (Allison, 2004; Castle Bell
et al., 2015; DeKay, 2012; Orbe, 1995; Parker, 2002; Shoss et al., 2013). According to
(Ahmed et al., 2010; Allen, 2007; Mammen & Sano, 2012; Mills, 2009; Murugavel &
10
Unfamiliar with co-cultural communication strategies, some employees, although
cultural group managers, may be unaware of the communication strategy (Castle Bell et
al., 2015). Consequently, an employee may be aware of and may intentionally use a
More likely than not, an employee using co-cultural communication in the workplace
interaction (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Orbe, 2016b). However, when an employee
the adjustment made although psychologically unaware of the learned behavior (Castle
Bell et al., 2015; Jiang, 2017; Orbe, 2016b; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). The behavior
stems from the individual’s cognition, behavior, and emotion (Castle Bell et al., 2015;
2015; Orbe, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2005, 2006, 2016b; Orbe & Roberts, 2012). Empirical
literature indicates that co-cultural communication strategies first studied during the early
1990s and continually developed through the year 2020 (Barkman, 2018; Castle Bell et
al., 2015; Orbe, 2016a, 2016b; Tang et al., 2020; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019) have yet to
11
permeate the industrial and organizational psychology field of study (Bell & Muir, 2014).
intercultural communication (Castle Bell et al., 2015; DeKay, 2012; Downey, 2015;
Wiggins, 2012) and multicultural communication (Castaneda et al., 2013; Han & Price,
Consequently, some dominant culture group managers may be unfamiliar with co-
to conflict (Congdon, 2014; Femi, 2014; Gillet et al., 2017; Kugler & Brodbeck, 2014;
Odine, 2015; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017; Steel & Plenty, 2015).
developed over time from its inception in the mid-1990s through 2020 (Barkman, 2018;
Camara & Orbe, 2010; Castle Bell et al., 2015; Orbe, 1998a, 2006, 2016a, 2016b; Orbe &
Roberts, 2012; Tang et al., 2020; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). In 2020, 28 co-cultural
communication practices exist with rationalization (Castle Bell et al., 2015) and strategic
alliance building (Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019) as the two most recently identified. This
12
Rationalization and strategic alliance building extend the co-cultural
communication theory and relate to the existing strategies and outcomes identified for
this present study. For example, Castle Bell et al. (2015) integrated rationalization under
the assertiveness approach and assimilation as the preferred outcome. Like Castle Bell et
al. (2015), Zirulnik and Orbe (2019) integrated strategic alliance building as an
the preferred outcome instead of separation. This present study uses separation instead of
Bell et al., 2015; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007). The present study focuses on working-class,
African-American females, ages 18 through and including age 85 (or no upper limit). The
workplace physically situated in the United States instead of virtual (Hendrix & Muir,
2014) organizational settings. The samples may include individual incumbents at any
non-dominant cultural group members, leaders, and organizations (Bell & Muir, 2014;
Castaneda et al., 2013). For example, a non-dominant group member may become
Gelfand et al., 2012; Kugler & Brodbeck, 2014). Each of the three variables—
13
(Goldman & Myers, 2015; Murugavel & Somaraju, 2016) of a non-dominant culture
does a leader who supports a culture of diversity inclusion (Downey et al., 2015; Orbe,
behavior, with diversity inclusion, is worthy of research and contributes to the field of
industrial and organizational psychology (Downey et al., 2015; Murugavel & Somaraju,
2016; Odine, 2015; Orbe, 1998a; Rauschenberger & Mellon, 2014; Riggio, 2018; Rudick
& Golsan, 2016). For example, Sorenson et al. (2015) supported the notion that
integrating research with practice makes “a theoretical and empirical contribution to [the]
field” (p. 21) of industrial and organizational psychology. Sorenson et al. (2015) further
indicated that both communication and behavior have a place within industrial and
organizational psychology.
Coughlin, 2014; Keyton et al., 2013; Orbe 1998a, 1998b; Rajhans, 2012; Shelby, 1993),
organizational behavior (Bravo & Roloff, 2015; Bray & Williams, 2017; Gates, 2003;
Stewart & Garcia-Prieto, 2008), and diversity inclusion (Allison & Hibbler, 2004;
Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012; Hays-Thomas & Bendick, 2013; Jones et al., 2017); are three
separate and stand-alone disciplines within distinctive fields of study. However, each of
the separate fields, communication, behavior, and diversity, aligns with industrial and
14
organizational psychology (Brannick, 2014; Rauschenberger & Mellon, 2014; Riggio,
2018; Sherbin & Rashid, 2017; Sorenson et al., 2015; Steelman, 2013).
African-American females who have not had continued access to or influence upon or
males in the workplace (Cubbage, 2018). The non-dominant cultural group of African-
American females in this present study differs from Orbe’s (1996) study participants. For
females (Zanoni et al., 2010). Orbe (1996, 2004, 2016a, 2016b) and other researchers
(e.g., Camara & Orbe, 2010; Congdon, 2014; Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Lapinski & Orbe,
2007; Rudick & Golsan, 2016; Scott, 2013) conducted studies involving numerous
various genders. This study’s cultural difference is between or among White males as the
Problem Statement
(Garnero et al., 2014), or LMX (Ahmed et al., 2010; Bell & Muir, 2014). Message
(Allison, 2004; Castle Bell et al., 2015; DeKay, 2012; Orbe, 1995; Parker, 2002; Shoss et
15
behavior and performance or productivity (Ahmed et al., 2010; Allen, 2007; Mammen &
The specific problem is that some employees may use co-cultural communication
strategies in workplace communication with managers, and some managers may not
conflict (Congdon, 2014; Femi, 2014; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Steel & Plenty, 2015).
behavior.
The co-cultural communication strategies selected for this study include preferred
outcomes, and assertive and non-assertive are the communication approaches. Two
preferred outcomes and two communication approaches selected for this study reside
within the 26 initial co-cultural communication strategies (Camara & Orbe, 2010;
the three, accommodate, does not appear in this study often except to acknowledge
not appear in this study. Nevertheless, subsequent studies generated two additional co-
16
strategies. Castle Bell et al. (2015) developed rationalization, and Zirulnik and Orbe
cultural communication strategies proposed in this study are three salient constructs of
(Bray & Williams, 2017; Steele & Plenty, 2015; Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013a).
emphasize only a few selected factors or constructs (e.g., Camara & Orbe 2010;
Congdon, 2014; Orbe, 1998a; Rudick et al., 2017). Similarly, neither accommodation as a
of this present study. As such, the number of factors selected for this study set no
precedent compared to previous studies. The two preferred outcomes (e.g., assimilate and
represent the co-cultural communication strategies chosen for this study. Also included
variables, also under examination, were three constructs of organizational behavior: (a)
disengagement, (b) dissatisfaction, and (c) conflict. Tools for data collection included two
17
Appendices B1 and B2 Section 2, for the Co-Cultural Communication Scale (Lapinski &
Orbe, 2007) and Appendices B1 and B2 Sections 3, the Job Satisfaction Survey (Sector,
1997).
The independent variables included the two co-cultural communication strategies. The
preferred outcomes—assimilate and separate, respectively (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Castle
Bell et al., 2015; Congdon, 2014; Keyton et al., 2013; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Orbe,
1996, 1998a; Orbe & Roberts, 2012). The independent variables selected aligned with the
study purpose and evidentiary reasoning, as did the dependent variables. The dependent
organizational behavior.
Data collection occurred using existing instrumentations. Lapinski and Orbe’s (2007) Co-
cultural Theory Scale (C-CTS) for the co-cultural communication strategies was one, and
Spector’s (1985, 1997) Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS) for the constructs of organizational
behavior was the other. Additionally, data collection occurred using the Qualtrics online
The population criteria for the study participants, the sampling type, and sample
size follow. The population needed for this study involved Black-American or African-
18
American females ages 18 years and up with no upper age limit, except that; three states
required different minimum ages of 19 and 21, addressed in this study. The Statistical
Package for Social Sciences data analysis software (http://www.spss.com) (Meyers et al.,
2013; Ozgur et al., 2015) data analysis software was used to determine the sample size of
participants needed for this study. Using a convenience sampling recruitment method
required no less than 100 samples to power the study, as demonstrated in this section.
The population age criteria differed for Mississippi with a minimum age of 21
years old, and both Alabama and Nebraska required a minimum of 19 years old as
provided at https://www.irbnet.org. Except for the three identified states’ population age
criteria, 21 was the minimum age of eligible participants needed for the study. Eligible
study participants were either working for or had worked in an American established
business that operated in the United States instead of solely virtual or global
organizations.
(Black/African-American and two or more races), prefer not to answer, and other (please
specify) as options. The participants either occupy one or both job roles, as a leader-
or are attending a public or private academic institution within the United States. See
19
proposal planning phase, Appendix C remained a stand-alone Appendix throughout the
study.
participants. The minimum sample size of 82 participants was based on power analyses
using the Statistical Package for Social Science™ data analysis software (Algina &
Olejnik 2010; Meyers et al., 2013; Ozgur et al., 2015). For example, the 82 samples
needed were based on an alpha level of .05, power of .80, and .30 effect size (Cohen,
1992; Meyers et al., 2013). However, with a 20% mitigation, adding 16.4 samples to the
82 participants allowed for incomplete surveys or missing data. Therefore, no less than
98.4 samples or at least 100 viable records were needed to power the study.
uniqueness and provided the significant benefit of informing organizational leaders and
psychology. The results contribute to current and future studies and add to leadership
knowledge and literature. Also significant to this study was the non-experimental,
quantitative research method with a correlational design and the different population
demographics. The literature indicated the previous studies used qualitative research
methods (Camara & Ore, 2010; Groscurth & Orbe, 2006; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007).
Bryman, 1984; Camara & Orbe, 2010; Groscurth & Orbe, 2006; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007;
Orbe, 1995, 1998a, 1998b; Orbe & Roberts, 2012), a quantitative correlational study was
20
proposed (Bray & Williams, 2017; Prematunga, 2012; Reio, 2010). Much of the
empirical literature contained support for and differences between qualitative and
quantitative research methods (Bryman, 1984; Cazan, 2012; Fassinger & Morrow, 2013;
Neuman, 2011). However, Lapinski and Orbe (2007) developed the first reliable and
Lapinski and Orbe’s (2007) study and scale opened the research agenda and
included the quantitative research method. This quantitative research study’s potential
Hays-Thomas & Bendick, 2013; Meares et al., 2004; Odine, 2015; Riggio, 2018; Steele
& Plenty, 2014; Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013b; Visagie et al., 2011, 2017).
organizational productivity (Ahmed et al., 2010; Garnero et al., 2014; Gillet et al., 2017;
leadership knowledge and literature. For example, the co-cultural communication theory
resides in business-related communication and the diverse fields of study (Allen, 2005,
2007; Brannick, 2014; Buzzanell et al., 2014; Emerson & Murphy, 2015; Orbe, 1995;
21
Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019; Shuler et al., 2016). Through this one of the few quantitative
studies on co-cultural communication, the phenomenon was integrated with the industrial
and organizational psychology field (Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012; Rauschenberger & Mellon,
communication akin to workplace behavior and diversity inclusion informs and aligns
with (for purposes of this study) the field of industrial and organizational psychology.
principles and methods to study human behavior and resolve workplace problems
participants (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Orbe, 1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b). Unlike much of
the empirical literature, the present study included working and retired adults experienced
Somaraju, 2016) with members of the dominant culture. Also, individuals no longer
working but who possessed experience working and interacting with the dominant culture
could participate.
22
Unlike prior studies encompassing varying ethnicities and multiple genders, this
al., 2015; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). This study’s significance and
nature aligned with the quantitative research method and correlation design used to
examine and determine if any relationship exists between and among the co-cultural
existed between or among the independent and dependent variables (Bryman, 1984;
Leatham, 2012; Prematunga, 2012). The focus of this study was to determine if a
and job satisfaction for one group of African-American female participants. Neither a
qualitative research method nor other quantitative research designs fit this study.
The three research questions and three sets of hypotheses of this study were
consistent with using a quantitative methodology. Data collection occurred through the
Qualtrics Panel and software program with two existing valid and reliable instruments
23
(CAPPR), and Spector’s (1985, 1997) Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) (Meyers et al., 2013;
Ozgur et al., 2015; Rudick et al., 2017). Data analysis began with Qualtrics’ StatIQ and
for Social Science™ (SPSS) data analysis software (Algina & Olejnik, 2010; Ozgur et
al., 2015).
Bates, 2012). Like Cozby and Bates (2012), Fassinger and Morrow (2013) posited that
the identified problem under investigation dictated the research method. Determining the
independent and dependent variables can help guide the researcher in selecting the
appropriate statistical tool (Fassinger & Morrow, 2013). Depending on the research
questions and hypotheses, the study variables are distinctly independent and dependent
(Prematunga, 2012).
were extracted from the co-cultural communication strategies provided in Tables A1 and
A2 in this study. Table A1, titled Co-Cultural Practices and Orientations Summary, has
nine categories of Example Practices with 26 items (Orbe & Roberts, 2021). Appendix A,
Outcomes, extracted from Castle Bell et al. (2015), has nine categories of practices with
Some of the 26 and 35 items were identical and overlapping between both;
however, the literature depicted each Table 1 and 2 as stand-alone (Camara, 2002;
Camara & Orbe, 2010; Castle Bell et al., 2019; Gates, 2003). For example, several items
24
were identical in Tables A1 and A2. The co-cultural communication strategies are used
by some minority individuals, as noted in the empirical literature (Groscurth & Orbe,
2006; Orbe, 1998a, 2006). The dependent variables disengagement, dissatisfaction, and
if any, or a lack of support for a relationship established directly in the data (Prematunga,
statistical analysis of the relationship between at least two variables (Paul & Cozby,
2012). The correlational approach will allow comprehension of the variability in two
(Allison & Hibbler, 2004; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Parker, 2002). Also, knowledge of such
exploring how and why phenomena happen (Morris & Monroe, 2009; Yin, 2006) also
allows inductive reasoning to study reality perceptions (Emerson & Murphy, 2014), as
comprehensive array of detail, the qualitative methodology does not determine whether
(Bryman, 1984; Rozas & Klein, 2010). Since the purpose of this study was to determine
25
research is discovering motivations and opinions, a qualitative method was deemed
inappropriate for this study. Another drawback of not performing a qualitative study was
American women in the workplace are accessible in different venues throughout the
relationship exists between variables (Ellis & Levy, 2009; Prematunga, 2012; Rusagara
analysis, correlation analysis does not indicate causation, even when the relationship
between independent and dependent variables is strong (Paul & Cozby, 2012). No group
comparisons occurred among the participants in this study, thus, making causal-
considered but not selected for this study. Experimental research designs allow
research involves the researcher’s manipulation of variables (Fassinger & Morrow, 2013;
Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). In an experimental design, a researcher uses two or more
groups that receive different treatments of the independent variable (Meyers et al., 2013).
the dependent variable in each group (Ellis & Levy, 2009). The researcher in this study
did not choose an experimental analysis because the study focused on determining the
26
predictive relationship between variables in an unaltered environment at a moment in
Choosing regression analysis as the statistical tool was appropriate for the quantitative
research method with correlational design. Using regression analysis, a researcher can
identify the predictor (independent) variables and dependent (criterion) variables while
allowing more than one predictor to be part of the model simultaneously. Some
surveys are adapted easily to many situations (Crouse Quinn et al., 2012; Neuman, 2011).
Researchers can administer surveys using remote, virtual, electronic, or digital techniques
and can replicate a study using the same survey (Hendrix & Wilson, 2014). Also, surveys
are suited for regression analysis and are prevalent in quantitative research (Bryman,
1984).
Thus, the data were collected using two instruments combined, which assess
Outcomes (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Rudick et al., 2017), and the Job Satisfaction Survey
(Astrauskaite et al., 2011; Spector, 1985, 1997). Both validated instruments generate
interval data. Also, data collection will occur online using the software program. The
Sections 2 and 3--manual versions and B2, Sections 2 and 3-- automated version. Data
analysis occurred using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences™ (SPSS) data
analysis software that interfaces well with the Qualtrics software program
27
consistent with using the quantitative methodology. The study outcomes were rigorous,
Research Questions
while preserving the study focus. Standardized and measurable research questions follow
the quantitative research method and correlational design. When measuring for the levels
workplace conflict. The three research questions focusing this study were:
RQ2: How does communication approach relate to job dissatisfaction for non-
Hypotheses
The research hypotheses for this study were constructed to determine if any
28
extracted from the co-cultural communication strategies in Table A2 with 35-line items.
According to Light et al. (1990), the null hypotheses are either accepted or failed
to accept. The formulation of the hypotheses characterizes the research variables and
explains the dependent variables, focusing on the relationships of interest and whether
statistical support will be evident. Hence the hypotheses proposed for this study were.
Hypotheses – Disengagement
29
Hypotheses – Dissatisfaction
Hypotheses – Conflict
30
H6a: A statistically significant relationship exists between the use of Orbe’s
Theoretical Framework
framework guiding this study. The theoretical framework includes the critical variables of
group members interacting with dominant cultural group members (Castle Bell et al.,
2015; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Orbe, 1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b; Orbe & Roberts, 2012;
Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). In this study, co-cultural communication reflects organizational
prototype of an inclusion component (Beebe & Biggers, 1986; Brannick, 2014; Downey
et al., 2015; Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Kramarae 1981, 2005; Krapels & Arnold, 1998;
Kugler & Brodbeck, 2014; Murphy, 1998; Odine, 2015; Riggio, 2018). The theoretical
framework further guides this study by linking workplace diversity (Gkorezis, 2015;
Gkorezis et al., 2015; Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1978; Meares et al., 2004) to psychology
behavioral, and emotional; organizational culture and cultural diversity; plus, an element
of diversity inclusion (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Heradstveit & Narvesen; 1978; Scott,
31
Depending on the context used, such as in familial relations or societal
possible based on situational occurrences at any given point in time (Orbe, 1998a). For
communicative occurrence depends on the situation and relative circumstances (Orbe &
Co-Cultural Theory
Co-cultural theory, as the framework guiding this study, includes key variables of
group members interacting with dominant cultural group members (Castle Bell et al.,
2015; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Orbe, 1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b; Orbe & Roberts, 2012;
Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Co-cultural theory examines how “co-cultural groups (groups
which have been historically marginalized) interact with dominant groups (groups which
have been historically privileged)” (Razzante & Orbe, 2018, p. 355). Subsequently to
Orbe coining the co-cultural theory in the 1990s, researchers continued explicating co-
cultural communication from inception and as recent as 2020 (Camara & Orbe, 2010;
Castle Bell et. al., 2015; Groscurth & Orbe, 2006; Han & Price, 2017; Hopson & Orbe,
2007; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Orbe, 1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2006,
2016a, 2016b; Orbe & Camara, 2010; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Orbe & Warren, 2000;
Razzante 2018a, 2018b; Razzante & Orbe, 2019; Tang et al., 2020; Zirulnik & Orbe,
2019).
32
Co-cultural theory as the framework guiding this study involves related workplace
or organizational communication (Jiang & Men, 2017; Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017);
organizational behavior (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Spector, 1997; Stewart & Garcia-Prieto,
2008); and diversity-inclusion (Downey et al., 2015; Suh & Lee, 2016; Visagie et al.,
Emerson & Murphy, 2015; Shuler et al., 2016) aligns with and informs the body of
Brannick, 2014; Rauschenberger & Mellon, 2014; Riggio, 2018; SIOP, 2015).
tendencies (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Camara & Orbe, 2010; Hays-Thomas & Bendick,
2013; Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1978; Scott, 2013; Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013a). The
individuals (Camara & Orbe, 2010). Camara and Orbe (2010) further indicate that a lack
American workplace. The behavioral constraints include (a) cognitive, behavioral, and
emotional; (b) organizational culture and cultural diversity; and (c) an element of
diversity inclusion (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Heradstveit & Narvesen; 1978; Scott, 2013;
Swarnalath & Prasanna, 2014). For example, organizational communication and co-
33
cultural communication are communicative interactions with a nexus to the three
constraints.
some communicative practices may be much less conducive to and situational in some
workplaces. A non-dominant cultural group member may use any one or more co-cultural
Co-cultural Communication
Orbe, 2019, p. 356), like that between non-dominant cultural group members and
dominant culture group members. In the 1990s, Orbe (1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b)
with the participants, also known as “co-researchers” (Orbe & Roberts, 2012). The
qualitative study methods allow the co-researchers a voice to reveal their lived experience
Camara and Orbe (2012) and Orbe and Roberts (2012) posited that co-cultural
34
Communication Orientations outlined in Appendix A, Table A3 in this study (Castle Bell
et al., 2015; Rudick et al., 2017; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Two co-cultural communication
items make up the independent variables for this study. Knowledge of the many other
items outlined in Tables A1 and A2 provide a fundamental premise for the phenomenon.
In 2019 and 2020, co-cultural communication research continued (Tang et al., 2020;
& Orbe, 2010; Castle Bell et al., 2015; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Assertiveness and non-
cultural communication strategies, assimilating and separating, are the preferred outcome
interactions with the dominant cultural group members (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Scott,
in the workplace leaves a psychological imprint (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009; Brown &
group members; such as marginalized, stigmatized, muted, and silenced (Brown &
Roloff, 2015; Hays-Thomas & Bendick, 2013; Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1978; Scott,
35
Scott (2013) referred to the daily interactions occurring between non-dominant
culture group members and the dominant culture group members as negotiating identity
in the “predominantly White environments” (p. 312) and in “cultural communities” (p.
depends on the non-dominant cultural group members (Orbe, 1998a, 199b). For example,
the non-dominant culture group member’s desired, expected, or preferred outcomes drive
the decision for determining which communication approach to enact. Enacting occurs
situationally (Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Murphy & Dweck, 2010; Orbe, 1998a, 1998b).
Organizational Communication
sending and receiving messages between and among individuals, verbally, or non-
verbally (Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017). Communication “is at the heart of all
workplace [sic]” . . . (Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017 p. 115). Root (2017) characterized
(2001) recognized communication as the “ideal speech situation” (Deetz, 2001, p. 45).
Fleck (2013), as cited in Hendrix and Wilson (2014), indicated that listening to non-
al., 2013; Gkorezis et al., 2015; Murugavel & Somaraju, 2016; Omilion-Hodges & Baker,
2017).
36
communication combining race and communication is sparse as posited by Allen (2007)
and Orbe (1998a, 1998b, 2000). Historically, where non-dominant cultural group
members participated as respondents in the research agenda, the empirical literature did
America include passive, assertive, aggressive, and passive-aggressive (Camara & Orbe,
2010; Congdon, 2014; Groscurth & Orbe, 2006; Nuru & Arendt, 2019; Odine, 2015;
Orbe, 1996; Turner & Shuter, 2004). The four communication styles are significantly like
Orbe’s (1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b) co-cultural communication theory. For example, non-
seems subtle but demonstrates anger as an underlying emotion (Orbe 1995, 1996, 1998a,
1998b).
communication styles (Congdon, 2014; Groscurth & Orbe, 2006; Nuru & Arendt, 2019;
Turner & Shuter, 2004) is presented here. Passive communication indicates an avoidance
of one’s need to meet the need of others (Turner & Shuter, 2004). Assertive
communication indicates an allowance for meeting one’s own needs while not violating
the need of another (Congdon, 2014). An aggressive communication style indicates one’s
expression of needs at the cost of violating someone else’s need or perceived entitlement
37
(Groscurth & Orbe, 2006; Holling, 2019; Nuru & Arendt, 2019). The passive-aggressive
communication style appears passive; however, underneath the surface, one harbors
anger or ill will. The ill will may present in organizational communication practices and
organizational behavior (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017;
Organizational Behavior
Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Razzante, 2018b). Psychological
and emotional processing (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1978; Jiang
& Men, 2017; Odine, 2015; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Riggio, 2018; Swarnalatha &
behavior involves verbal and nonverbal body language and psychological processes
communication styles or preferred outcomes (Congdon, 2014; Groscurth & Orbe, 2006;
2010; Bell & Muir, 2014; Riggio, 2018). However, communicative behavior (Keyton et
38
Riggio, 2018) recognizes both organizational communication (Rajhans, 2012; Reinsch &
Gardner, 2014) and business communication as salient to the similarities and variances
between the two (Ahmed et al., 2010; Bell & Muir, 2014).
(Brown & Roloff, 2015; Gkorezis, 2015; Steele & Plenty, 2015). Organizational support
2015; Richard et al., 2013; Singh, 2009; Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013a). Diversity
inclusion encompasses individuals with and from different cultural experiences such as
backgrounds, thoughts, and beliefs (Odine, 2015; Richard et al., 2013; Singh, 2009;
Diversity Inclusion
employee’s perception of the organizational support (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Shoss et al.,
2013; Rudick & Golsan, 2016). Several differences existent in workplace culture include
individuals’ backgrounds, thoughts, and beliefs (Odine, 2015; Richard et al., 2013; Singh,
(2018), Steele and Plenty (2015), and Eisenberger et al. (2010) do not disagree in that the
39
workplace, where cultural differences exist, so does a need for effective leader-member
Garnero et al., 2014; Gkorezis, 2015; Gkorezis et al., 2015; Odine, 2015; Riggio, 2018;
behavior influence the quality of the leader-member exchange interactions and the
employees’ perception of such quality (Allen, 2007; Brannick, 2014; Downey et al.,
2015; Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Liu et al., 2010). The increasing number of diverse
the evolving workplaces (Coleman Selden & Selden, 2001; Hays-Thomas & Bendick,
2013; Liu et al., 2010; Luttrell, 2014; Oliha-Donaldson, 2018; Orbe, 1998a, 2004;
Rauschenberger & Mellon, 2014; Razzante, 2018a, 2018b; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). In the
1990s, Orbe (1998a) contended that little research linking diversity and organizational
communication existed.
Rauschenberger and Mellon (2014) and Shelby (1993) revealed a gap in the
follows. Castle Bell et al. (2015), Emerson and Murphy (2014), Ferdman and Sagiv
(2012), Hayes-Thomas and Bendick (2013), Razzante and Orbe (2016a, 2018), Root
(2018), Rudick et al. (2017), Tang et al. (2020) and Zirulnik and Orbe (2019) conducted
members’ negotiation of cultural identity (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Coughlin, 2014; Orbe,
40
2004, 2016; Scott, 2013). A non-dominant cultural group member contributes to the
cultural identity negotiation as an outsider within an organization (Hopson & Orbe, 2007;
Orbe, 1998a, 2016b; Rauschenberger & Mellon, 2014; Razzante, 2018b). Hendrix and
Wilson (2014) indicated that non-dominant cultural group members experience the
expressions. Hendrix and Wilson (2014) also stated that negotiating or navigating a place
assimilate with the terms and perceptions as the dominant group” (p. 415).
definitions of veracious terms enable an audience to understand from the same point of
reference (Ramirez-Sanchez, 2008). For example, Orbe (1998a) revered the phrase
were traditionally excluded (p. 237). Razzante (2018b) addressed “outsiders within” and
“insiders within” (p. 341). Hopson and Orbe (2007) also addressed the “outsider within”
approach (p. 73). Shuler et al. (2016) and Omilion-Hodges and Baker (2017), like
Rauschenberger and Mellon (2014), posited that the organizational leaders are
responsible for governing workplace diversity and inclusion in a manner conducive to the
Definition of Terms
41
Assimilation
involves attempts to eliminate cultural differences, including the loss of any distinctive
1998a, p. 243).
Co-cultural Communication
Orbe, 2019, p. 356), such as between non-dominant cultural group members and
The C-CTS was designed to measure, through self-report, two main components
framework that examines the ways that members of co-cultural groups communicate
when interacting with members of the dominant culture” (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007, p.
137).
Culture
Culture refers to the mechanism wherein individuals understand the world and
strive to survive (Orbe, 1995). Hogan and Coote (2014) and Swarnalatha and Prasanna
(2013) define culture as a valid assumption of the pattern and values adopted and
42
emotion—feeling. Culture is also the beliefs learned through overcoming challenges and
is resistant to change (Hogan & Coote, 2014; Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013).
Decision Maker
Narvesen, 1978; Odine, 2015; Reinsch & Gardner, 2014; Richard et al., 2013). The
(Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1978; Odine, 2015; Reinsch & Gardner, 2014; Richard et al.,
2013).
Diversity
significance (Meares et al., 2004). Many researchers associate diversity with inclusion
(Liu et al., 2010; Richard et al., 2013; Riggio, 2018; Singh, 2010; Swarnalatha &
Prasanna, 2013b).
Diversity Inclusion
Diversity inclusion, as defined by Allison and Hibbler (2004), Odine (2015), and
Singh (2010), refers to consciously accepting different cultural values and overcoming
43
groups. Rudick and Golsan (2016) refer to diversity as differences in power, privilege,
and oppression.
Dominant Culture
Dominant culture refers to perceptions and core values, norms, or behaviors of the
American workplace (Buzzanell, 1999; Hendrix & Wilson, 2014). Dominant culture
relates to the perception of one culture more superior over another (Murugavel &
Somaraju, 2016; Steel & Plenty, 2015). Dominant culture represents the hierarchal
structure (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Congdon, 2014) in organizations where decision-
making power is held inherently (Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Ramirez-Sanchez, 2008;
The dominant cultural group or dominant cultural group members are the Angelo
in organizational structures (Buzzanell, 1999; Camara & Orbe, 2010; Orbe & Roberts,
Inconspicuous Difficulties
an organization that inhibits non-dominant cultural group members from achieving upper
or senior level management positions (Buzzanell, 1999; Buzzanell et al., 2014; Buzzanell
& Lucas, 2013; Odine, 2015; Orbe, 1998a, 2015; Ramirez-Sanchez, 2008; Simmons et
44
al., 2011). For example, cognitive, behavioral, and emotional (Mears et al., 2004; Scott,
attitudes about the job and the job aspects. Although the development of the Job
Satisfaction Survey (JSS) was intended for measurement of human service staff
satisfaction (Spector,1985), the JSS evolved and now applies to any organization
Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Odine, 2015; Orbe, 1996; Ramirez-Sanchez, 2008; Razzante &
employees (Gkorezis, 2015; Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Odine, 2015; Orbe, 1996;
Ramirez-Sanchez, 2008; Razzante & Orbe, 2019). The dominant culture group members
employees and managers directing and controlling individuals (Buzzanell et al., 2014).
marginalized African-Americans living in the United States who have not had continued
access to or influence upon or within the dominant culture group (Orbe,1996, 1998a).
45
One group’s dominance, causing silence or ineffective communication of another (E.
Navigate
dominant cultural group members use in moving through or contending with powerful
2010; Castle Bell et al., 2015; Razzante & Orbe, 2018; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Navigate
within the organization”. . . which when achieved reflects the employees’ “assimilated
Negotiate
members of the dominant cultural group (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Groscurth & Orbe,
2006; Orbe, 1998a; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Orbe (2016a, 2016b) further indicated,
negotiate applies to “the costs and rewards inherent with being a white” or dominant
members, and working-class (Buzzanell, 1999; Camara & Orbe, 2010; Castle Bell et al.,
46
2015; Cubbage, 2018; Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Orbe, 1998a;
Rocco et al., 2014; Solorzano, 2000; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Expressions of a non-
dominant cultural group member or members will be used interchangeably with similar
subordinates.
more individuals to achieve progress (Keyton et al., 2013). Jiang and Men (2015),
Keyton et al. (2013), and Orbe and Camara (2010) assert that conversing in the
relations within groups and connects individuals and group-level communicative actions.
leaders’ behavior, whether supportive or abusive (Shoss et al., 2013). The employees’
Quality of Communication
dominant culture group members and the non-dominant culture group members (Liu et
al., 2010; Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017). The quality of communicative interaction is
47
the leader’s responsibility, who observes or examines the non-dominant cultural group
members’ assimilation (Goldman & Myers, 2015; Liu et al., 2010; Omilion-Hodges &
satisfaction. Employees distanced from the organizational leader with less frequent
Williams, 2017).
Rationalization
reality or lessening the truth (Castle Bell et al., 2015). For example, assigning alternative
the place of accountability (Castle Bell et al., 2015). Rationalization is one of the newest
Separation
Separation refers to reframing from “a common bond” with dominant culture group
members and rather seeking to establish and preserve distinct characteristics of “group
identities outside or within dominant structures” including “in White corporate America
48
Socially Marginalized African-Americans
engagement with the dominant culture group (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Groscurth & Orbe,
2006; Orbe, 1998a; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Socially marginalized African-Americans
members.
alliance building is the newest communication approach extending Orbe’s (1998) co-
Workplace Conflict
(Turner & Shuter, 2004). Differing interpretation or understanding among leaders and
Orbe, 2010; Odine, 2015; Prause & Mujtaba, 2015; Steele & Plenty, 2014; Turner &
Shuter, 2004).
49
Assumptions
Assumption represents what is taken for granted in the study and which the
researcher does not control. For example, one assumes the participants will respond
honestly and candidly on the survey, provide accurate self-reports on the demographics,
communication strategies may exist among study participants. Also, a lack of awareness
(2016), may remain a sensitive topic in some American workplaces. For example, the
Root, 2018; Scott, 2013; Tang et al., 2020; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). In discussing
diversity, the terms Anglo Saxon, Euro or European American, Caucasian, or White
heterosexual males (Allen, 2007; Camara & Orbe, 2010; Cubbage, 2018; Goering &
Breidenstein-Cutspec, 1990; Orbe & Camara, 2010) may present a negative connotation.
workers, with a focus on African-American or Black females. The term dominant culture
referring to the males identified above as Anglo Saxon, Euro or European American,
Caucasian, or White males (Orbe & Camara, 2010) will be represented in this study as
50
decision-makers, dominant culture group, dominant culture group members, employers,
Limitations
Limitations may adversely affect the results and generalization of the study results
(Orbe, 1995). In addition to the civil unrest and the COVID-19 pandemic in America in
2020 and 2021, other constraints or limitations existed. For example, the quantitative
The nation’s stay at home and masks-wearing mandates made hardcopy survey
participating and returning the survey within the timeline. Also, the number of
participants who withdrew from the study prematurely caused the need for more
Consequently, the researcher had no control over limitations, such as the number
of individuals who did not respond to the survey. Accordingly, an investigation of all
Orbe’s co-cultural communication practices (Castle Bell et al., 2015) was not possible in
this focused study. An analysis of more than the two of 28 communication strategies
identified for this study was much too large and complex.
The self-report, online survey in the present study was limited based on some
information about their cultural and communicative behaviors. Some respondents may
have unknowingly used some form of the co-cultural communication approach while
approaches did not indicate one’s awareness that co-cultural communication practices
51
existed or that non-dominant culture group members used the communication techniques.
online) was probably not uncommon (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Keyton et al., 2013).
critical race theory, and standpoint theory (Allen, 2007; Hendrix & Wilson, 2014;
Kramarae, 2005; Liggett, 2014; Murugavel & Somaraju, 2016; Orbe, 1998b; Rocco et al.,
2014; Rudick & Golsan, 2016). This present study focused on two co-cultural
communication strategies.
Delimitations
and scientifically sound study. The mitigated sample recruitment strategy involved
securing an agreement with Qualtrics Panel services. This mitigated recruitment method
counteracted the effects of the Nation’s civil unrest and COVID-19 pandemic. The
sample recruitment and data collection address the federal and state government shelter-
in-place requirements. The Qualtrics Panel online recruitment method could produce the
number of viable samples needed in one-half the time required for a face-to-face
Qualtrics Panel entered into an agreement wherein the researcher’s needs were doable.
While mitigating for every limitation was impossible, studying two of 28 co-
group members may be unfamiliar with the co-cultural communication approaches, this
52
study may have brought some degree of awareness. Generalizing co-cultural
positions, for example, mainstream communication theory, muted group theory, critical
collecting and including data from dominant culture group organizational leaders.
Collecting data from the dominant culture group members may artificially inflate the
Podsakoff et al., 2003; Reio, 2010). The electronic or online survey method might have
affected study results for participants unfamiliar with the online platform differently than
respondents familiar with the software program, Qualtrics (Gkorezis, 2015; Podsakoff et
The sample included individuals either working or who have worked in or for an
organization or industry of any size, established and operating in the United States.
Organizations or industries also include academic institutions such as public and private
colleges and universities established and physically operating in the United States instead
the sample size needed to ensure the rigor of the study (Heim et al., 2011). Qualtrics
Chapter Summary
behavior (Adler, 1991; Bell et al., 2015; Keyton et al., 2013; Orbe & Camara, 2010;
53
Stewart & Garcia-Prieto, 2008), and diversity with an inclusion component (Richard et
al., 2013). The background section of this study revealed 28 co-cultural communication
strategies (see Table A3) developed over time with origination in the 1990s (Orbe, 1995,
1996, 1998a) and extending through 2019 (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Razzante & Orbe,
2018; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). The problem of message confusion or miscommunication
differences (Allison, 2004; Castle Bell et al., 2015; DeKay, 2012; Orbe, 1995; Parker,
2007; Mammen & Sano, 2012; Mills, 2009; Shoss et al., 2013). Some employees may
managers may not recognize or may be unfamiliar with the co-cultural communicative
approaches (Castle Bell et al., 2015; DeKay, 2012; Orbe, 1998a, 2006; Shoss et al.,
2013). Similarly, managers and employees may be unfamiliar with or unable to detect
when co-cultural communication occurs (Castle Bell et al., 2015; DeKay, 2012; Orbe,
workplace can influence organizational communication (Liu et al., 2010). For example,
the employees’ perceived organizational support and view of the LMX quality can
54
(Congdon, 2014; Femi, 2014; Mammen & Sano, 2012; Mills, 2009; Orbe & Roberts,
The purpose of this study was to examine and determine if any relationship
strategies or approaches identified in Table A3, the independent variables included co-
2010; Castle Bell et al., 2015; Congdon, 2014; Keyton et al., 2013; Lapinski & Orbe,
managers working with diverse workforces in American workplaces. The need for the
study stemmed from the unfamiliar communicative practices that inform organizational
(Richard et al., 2013; Riggio, 2018), performance, and productivity (Garnero et al.,
2014).
The problem the study was designed for involves communication or message
confusion and miscommunication (Orbe, & Camara, 2010; Solorzano, 2000) between
55
2013). Managers and employees may be unfamiliar with or unable to detect when co-
cultural communication occurs (Castle Bell et al., 2015; DeKay, 2012; Orbe, 1998a,
2006; Shoss et al., 2013). Co-cultural communicative practice in the workplace can
the dominant culture, who used qualitative methodologies in the communication field
(Brown & Roloff, 2015; Orbe, 1995, 1998a, 2004, 2016b; Orbe & Camara, 2010).
voices in communication research scarcely existed. In 2012, Orbe and Roberts conducted
previously muted and silenced voices of the non-dominant cultural group members (Orbe
& Roberts, 2012; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). However, more recent research on co-cultural
theorizing does include data collected from the minority or non-dominant cultural groups
(Rudick et al., 2017; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Although quantitative with the correlational
design, this present study involved African-American females from the non-dominant
culture group.
communication phenomenon was unique as most studies to date were conducted using
the qualitative method and different qualitative designs. The co-cultural communication
56
In conclusion, the problem and purpose statements, the study’s significance,
quantitative research method, and correlational design aligned appropriately with the
research questions and hypotheses needed to conduct the investigation. While the co-
defining the operational terms provided clarity and unified meaning throughout the
performance and productivity (Mammen & Sano, 2012; Mills, 2009; Shoss et al., 2013).
Chapter 2 includes the literature review and expansion of the framework guiding
with an inclusion component (Kramarae, 1981, 2005; Steele & Plenty, 2014), co-cultural
theory, and co-cultural communication (Orbe & Roberts, 2012). The theoretical
framework guiding the study is consistent with the empirical literature on the co-cultural
2005).
57
Chapter 2
Literature Review
organizations risk losing "$350 billion annually" in costs of adverse effects (Osborne &
diverse workforces (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Deluliis & Flinko, 2016; Osborne &
Hammoud, 2017).
cultural backgrounds and groups (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017; Scott, 2013; Seibert et al.,
and documentation, historical and current content, literature for the theoretical
framework, methodology, and research design. Finally, conclusions are derived from the
literature review.
al., 2002; DeKay, 2012; Odine, 2015; Perkins, 2008; Rajhans, 2012; Seibert et al., 2002).
58
communication, organizational behavior, and workplace diversity (Brown & Roloff,
2015; Camara & Orbe, 2010; Coleman Selden, & Selden, 2001; Steele & Plenty, 2014),
served as the theoretical framework guiding this study theory (Callahan, 2014; Groscurth
& Orbe, 2006; Orbe, 1998a; Randolph, 2009; Timmins & McCabe, 2005).
cultural theory (Callahan, 2014; Groscurth & Orbe, 2006; Orbe, 1998a; Randolph, 2009;
between managers and employees at work (Garnero et al., 2014); during the leader-
member communicative exchange (Ahmed et al., 2010; Bell & Muir, 2014); or in the
interpersonal behaviors (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). Message confusion due to the use
2004; Castle Bell et al., 2015; DeKay, 2012; Orbe, 1995; Parker, 2002; Shoss et al.,
2013) may result in conflict. Conflict can adversely affect organizational behavior
performance or productivity (Ahmed et al., 2010; Allen, 2007; Mammen & Sano, 2012;
(Brown & Roloff, 2015; De Janasz et al., 2002). Each of the psychological constraints
may positively or adversely affect or hinder effective communication (De Janasz et al.,
2002; Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1978; Liu et al., 2010; Scott, 2013; Swarnalatha &
Prasanna, 2013a). For instance, some employees may use co-cultural communication
59
message confusion or miscommunication may lead to employee disengagement,
dissatisfaction, or conflict (Congdon, 2014; Femi, 2014; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Steel &
Plenty, 2015). Therefore, research was needed to examine relationships between co-
cultural communication (Camara & Orbe, 2010) and organizational behavior constructs.
The title searches and documentation included a series of keywords used in data
retrieval from various sources for analysis and retention or exclusion. The series of
keywords used in data retrieval, for example, included Boolean expressions and syntax,
such as AND, OR, and NOT with "quotation marks," and parentheses ( ) accompanying
the terms such as co-cultural communication, co-cultural communication theory, and co-
cultural theory; cultural development; diversity and diversity inclusion; dominant group
member and non-dominant group member; employee engagement and job satisfaction;
workplace civility, workplace conflict, and workplace culture. Data retrieved and
analyzed for this systematic literature review originated through electronic platforms,
included databases and resources such as EBSCO, ERIC, Google Scholar, ProQuest,
Abstracts. The UOPX library contained scholars (of theories), although sparse, on co-
cultural communication. Other terms used in browsing the sources include employee
60
Additionally, the UOPX College of Doctoral Studies maintains an online source
such as Apollo libraries and the World Wide Web. The sources analyzed and retained are
identified in the Reference list at the end of this proposal. Salient peer-reviewed journal
articles were retained. The UOPX's digital databases of published dissertations with
Data gathering occurred through a systematic literature review for three clear and
unambiguous research questions on co-cultural theory (Cronin et al., 2008; Kucan, 2011;
transparency within the study (Newman & Covrig, 2013). Additionally, using a
systematic literature review in this study, for example, informed the co-cultural
studies (Rozas & Klein, 2010; Timmins & McCabe, 2005). The existing studies appear
later in the Historical Content of this Chapter 2. Criteria used in selecting and retaining
the literature for a rigorous and quality review included six items outlined in Appendix D
A set of six questions was used in assessing the literature criteria for inclusion or
exclusion in the study. The literature criteria for each article retained focused on the
following: (a) What is the study title?; (b) When was the study conducted, and where?;
(c) What were the study methods and research designs?; (d) Were study demographics
revealed for human subjects?; (e) How many samples were recruited?; and (f) the number
61
The six criteria used to choose a publication for a rigorous study were applied to
the germinal and seminal literature alike. Literature retained for the study is expected to
lead to an outcome revealing positive and--or negative characteristics (Brown & Roloff,
2015; Goldman & Myers, 2015; Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017; Reinsch & Gardner,
2014) of the co-cultural communication theory (Barkman, 2018; Castle Bell et al., 2015).
Historical Content
study and published at least five years before this proposed research study. This historical
behavior, and workplace diversity. The co-cultural theory phenomenon began with Orbe
understanding the world, and the ability to strive and survive in the world (Hopson &
Orbe, 2007; Orbe, 1995; Rajhans, 2012). In 1995, Orbe’s call to action was “two-fold”
(p. 70). Orbe (1995) desired “to advance an understanding of the impact ethnicity has on
communication and disseminating this information to the general public” (p. 70). In
1996, Orbe began developing “the foundation for co-cultural communication theory as an
62
In 1996, Orbe conducted a qualitative study by interviewing 27 minority
participants, conducting 14 interviews, and four focus groups. Orbe’s (1996) study
interacted with the dominant cultural group members. The 12 identified communication
confrontational tactics” (Orbe, 1996, p. 157). However, this proposed study focuses on
two co-cultural communication strategies, assertive and non-assertive, and two preferred
outcomes, assimilate and separate (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Castle Bell et al., 2015;
Congdon, 2014; Keyton et al., 2013; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Orbe, 1996, 1998; Orbe &
Roberts, 2012).
The co-cultural communication variables for the study correlation are assertive
communication study variables will be measured with Lapinski and Orbe’s (2007) co-
cultural theory scale. The variables of organizational behavior for the study include
as the organizational behavior variable will be measured with Spector’s (1985, 1997) job
study. The fields are organizational communication (Allen 2007; Buzzanell 1999;
Goldman & Myers, 2015; Jiang & Men, 2017; Odine, 2015; Orbe & Harris, 2015;
Rajhans, 2012; Suh & Lee, 2016); organizational behavior (Riggio, 2018; Spector, 1997;
63
Stewart & Garcia-Prieto, 2008); and diversity as re-engineered to incorporate inclusion
(Hays-Thomas & Bendick, 2013; Jerome, 2013; Liu et al., 2010; Richard et al., 2013;
Sherbin & Rashid, 2017). The first field includes co-cultural, organizational, and business
the third field of study. The three components, communication, behavior, and diversity
inclusion, align with the field of industrial and organizational psychology (Allen, 2007;
Allison & Hibbler, 2004; Averbeck-Lietz, 2013; Bell & Muir, 2014; Brown & Roloff,
relevant problems or business issues (Rauschenberger & Mellon, 2014). This study’s
organizational, or business. Mainly, miscommunication may occur among the leaders and
diverse workforce (Eisenberger et al., 2010; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). Some socially
perhaps unsuspectingly or even naively (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Congdon, 2014; Hendrix
leaders and employees (Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Odine, 2015; Richards et al., 2013).
Rudick et al. (2017) conducted an empirical literature review revealing that most research
64
on co-cultural communication was conducted using various qualitative research designs.
Rudick et al. also used minority student populations from American colleges and
universities (Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Morris & Monroe, 2009; Orbe, 2004; Rudick et
al., 2017; White & Ali-Khan, 2013). Discussion on the qualitative research designs
Over a period, Orbe (1996, 1998, 2006, 2005) either authored or co-authored
much of the literature on co-cultural communication from inception in the early 1990s
until approximately 2019 (Barkman, 2018; Orbe 1995, 1996, 1998a, 1988b, 2016a,
2016b; Orbe & Camara, 2010; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Orbe & Harris, 2015; Orbe &
Roberts, 2012; Orbe & Warren, 2000; Razzante & Orbe, 2018; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019).
Since the early 1990s, numerous authors and co-authors with Orbe contributed to the co-
discussions and align with the industrial and organizational field of study (Brannick,
2014; Downey et al., 2015; Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012; Morrison & von Glinow, 1990;
organization situated within and conducting business in the United States (Shuler et al.,
2016; Scott, 2013). Neither the size of a workplace nor the number of individuals was a
focus in this study. Organizational criteria for a workplace in this study remains a place
of business situated in and operating within the United States of America. Like an
ongoing trend in 21st Century America, the “Make America Great Again” cliché refers to
65
preserving and retaining jobs in the United States of America for American citizens
or lack of communication and interpersonal interactions with the workers are reflected in
organizational support from the leaders or dominant culture group members serves a
The dominant culture group leaders influence each facet of the leader-member
and aligns with the field of industrial and organizational psychology (Allen, 2007;
Allison & Hibbler, 2004; Averbeck-Lietz, 2013; Bell & Muir, 2014; Brown & Roloff,
2015; Rauschenberger & Mellon, 2014). Employees look to the organizational leaders for
the “pro-environmental behavior” (Gkorezis, 2015, p. 1045). Employees also hold the
organization and its leaders responsible for the quality of workplace communication and
organizational support (Keyton et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2010; Shoss et al., 2013).
Across three samples at different intervals, Shoss et al. (2013) study findings
revealed that low or decreased “perceived organizational support” (p. 158) correlated
66
with employees’ counterproductive or damaging behavior in the workplace. Dependent
Shoss et al., 2013). The employees view the leaders as representing the organization
(embodiment), meaning; an organization is responsible for its leaders (Shoss et al., 2013).
partners (Shoss et al., 2013). As such, employees hold the organization partly responsible
and accountable for the degree of corporate support provided and the quality of
workplace interactions (Eisenberger et al., 2010; Shoss et al., 2013). Employees hold the
where employees perceive “that the organization values their contributions” (Shoss et al.,
2013, p. 158). Employees look to the organization and its leaders for nurturing workplace
environments of professional civility and diversity inclusivity (Deluliis & Flinko, 2016;
member exchange occurs in the workplace (Deluliis & Flinko, 2016, p. 4). According to
Garnero et al. (2014), “workforce diversity” (p. 430) affects corporate profits. Literature
supports workforce diversity as indicative of and aligning with the field of industrial and
organizational psychology (Allen, 2007; Allison & Hibbler, 2004; Averbeck-Lietz, 2013;
Bell & Muir, 2014; Brown & Roloff, 2015; Downey et al., 2015; Hayes-Thomas &
inclusion supports individuals with differing backgrounds and beliefs (Castel Bell et al.,
67
2015; Richard et al., 2013). Diversity inclusivity engrosses individuals cognitively,
et al., 2013). Richard et al. posit that diversity can be both positive and negative in the
workplace. For example, Richard et al. indicate that diversity enhances an organization’s
and misunderstanding can increase with diversity and negatively influence workgroup
placating consensus building in diverse workgroups (Richard et al., 2013). The authors
Seemingly, more literature supports diversity inclusion (Littrell, 2014; Liu et al.,
2010; Razzante, 2018b; Richard et al., 2013; Shore et al., 2011) compared to oppositional
viewpoints (Cubbage, 2018; Luttrell, 2014; Richard et al., 2013). Differences or diversity
in the 21st Century American workforce steadily increases (Luttrell, 2014). In this study,
differences and diversity involved non-dominant culture group members like socially
and navigate an organization (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Hays-Thomas & Bendick, 2013;
Orbe, 2004; Rollock, 2011; Scott, 2013; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019).
68
Negotiating and navigating informs employee engagement and job satisfaction,
but not without inconspicuous difficulties or challenges, which are synonymous with
workplace conflict (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Buzzanell, 1999; DeKay, 2012; Heradstveit
& Narvesen, 1978; Kugler & Brodbeck, 2014; Murugavel & Somaraju, 2016; Odine,
2015; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). Organizational conflict, as Murugavel and Somaraju
(2016) defined, means “the exchange of opposing viewpoints within the workplace” (p.
135). African-Americans (people of color) are traditionally situated on the margins of the
United States’ society and perceived as “muted” groups, which affect communicative
Negotiation and navigation, which refer to the promotion progression from the
(Gkorezis, 2015; Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Ramirez-Sanchez, 2008; Reinsch & Gardner,
et al., 2015; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017; Orbe, 1998a).
strategies (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Orbe, 1998a; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Enacting the co-
cultural communication strategies may occur with or without awareness (Brown &
69
Roloff, 2015; Gelfand et al., 2012; Kugler & Brodbeck, 2014; Murugavel & Somaraju,
2016; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017; Richard et al., 2013; Turner & Shuter, 2004). For
example, a non-dominant culture group member, while unfamiliar with the co-cultural
communication strategies, is more likely than not aware of the intentional acts of
engagement and adaptation when striving to attain job satisfaction. However, the
difference is the gap between the familiar behavioral adjustment and the unknown labels
of co-cultural communication.
group leader and a non-dominant culture group member (Buzzanell, 1999; Goldman &
Myers, 2015; Hays-Thomas & Bendick, 2013), to the extent of individualized workplace
culture’s effect on workplace behavior. Power distance is a seminal term where Minkov
is one of the dimensions accounting for the most considerable difference in employee
yielding more than 53,000 participants. The Minkov et al. (2017) study led to some
et al. (2017) created a new individual/collectivism measure as a revised valid and reliable
The new scale reducing the items to seven makes future use practical (Minkov et
al., 2017). For instance, Hofstede’s individualism and collectivism evolved to include
70
dimensions of “universalism” and “exclusionism” (Minkov et al., 2017, p. 389). The
literature revealed conflict avoidance, ingroup, and outgroup practices in some countries
(Minkov et al., 2017). Ingroup and outgroup differences refer to favorable and
distance or societal standing seemed similar to Orbe’s (1998a) “outsider from within”
concept (p. 230). However, Murugavel and Somaraju (2016) posited that research does
not universally support the cultural dimension to explain behavioral differences between
diverse cultures.
strategies and cultural differences of foreign individuals migrating to the United States.
Although the participants were from South Asian and East Asian populations, the
research strategy used and the cultural differences focused on the immigrant populations
situated in the United States (Murugavel & Somaraju, 2016). The instrument used in the
Somaraju, 2016). The study participants selected for the research favored westernization
as the process for immigrants to modify their indigenous behaviors and values and adapt
to more traditional Western principles (Murugavel & Somaraju, 2016). The researchers
advocated for shared socialization leading to behavioral and social conformity while
suggesting that foreign individuals migrating to the United States consider converging
71
Men, 2017; Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017). The features are organizational behavior,
(Downey et al., 2015; Suh & Lee, 2016; Visagie et al., 2011, 2017). The prototype of
inclusion is a critical component of diversity (Beebe & Biggers, 1986; Brannick, 2014;
Downey et al., 2015; Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Kramarae 1981, 2005; Krapels & Arnold,
1998; Kugler & Brodbeck, 2014; Murphy, 1998; Odine, 2015; Riggio, 2018).
workplace, which also informs communicative interaction (Brown & Roloff, 2015;
Spector, 1997; Stewart & Garcia-Prieto, 2008), as features of organizational behavior and
workplace (Allen, 2007; Buzzanell et al., 2014; Emerson & Murphy, 2015;
interpersonal communication (Allen, 2007; Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Rudick & Golsan,
of communication (Rajhans, 2012). The two forms include the communication discipline
72
Co-Cultural Communication
group (Allison & Hibbler, 2004; Parker, 2002; Shoss et al., 2013). Co-cultural
include: being overly gracious and polite, downplaying co-cultural differences, averting
one’s cultural group, ridiculing self, and dispelling stereotypes (Orbe & Roberts, 2012).
The most recent development added the strategy labeled rationalization as a co-culture
members and mostly unfamiliar to some dominant culture group members (Orbe, 1998a).
Thus, in the American workplace, the dominant culture group members possess the
power to render co-cultural communicative tactics silenced, invisible, and muted (Camara
The literature on the 26 co-cultural communication tactics was formed during the
inception of the co-cultural theory in the 1990s and has continued advancing through
2019 (Barkman, 2018; Castle Bell et al., 2015; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Several authors
and coauthors (e.g., Orbe and others) contributed to the co-cultural communication
phenomenon (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Congdon, 2014; Groscurth & Orbe, 2006; Holling,
2019; Orbe, 1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2016a, 2016b; Orbe &
Camara, 2010; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Literature remains
73
somewhat vague concerning the revelation of how or where members of the non-
Mellon, 2014).
co-cultural communication approaches from 26 to 27. Castle Bell et al. (2015) defined
overlooking, and ignoring communicative infractions in the workplace (Castle Bell et al.,
organizational practices but without the opportunity of asking questions of the leaders
(Deetz, 1992; Rogers, 1993; Thackaberry, 2004). For example, distorted communication
74
or message confusion in a culturally structured workplace forbids individuals from
(Buzzanell et al., 2014; Deetz, 1992; Rogers, 1993; Thackaberry, 2004; White & Ali-
Khan, 2013).
group members negotiate (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Castle Bell et al., 2015; Worthen,
2008) and navigate (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Orbe, 1998; Orbe & Roberts, 2012) the
saliency of workplace success (Gillet et al., 2017). The non-dominant culture group
members “strive to survive” (Orbe, 1995, p. 62) in the American workplace. For
example, a non-dominant culture group member may use any one or combination of co-
experience (Hendrix et al., 2016; Orbe, 1995, 2000; Scott, 2013). For example, a non-
dominant culture group of females found themselves navigating between the workplace
environment of their non-dominant culture group and the dominant culture group’s
(2013) further posited that adapting or the flexibility to adjust provides a means for the
an organization (leaders) and the employees Osborne & Hammoud, 2017; Rajhans,
an organization (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Castle Bell et al., 2015; DeKay, 2012). A lack of
75
employee performance (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). Accordingly, Osborne and
less than 200 workers in an industry situated within more than 200 countries. The study
organization and the workforce to achieve success and financial gains (Ahmed et al.,
2010; Meares et al., 2004; Odine, 2015; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017; Rajhans, 2012;
emotional) and physiological states (physical wellbeing, or work like balance) drive
postulated by Castle Bell et al. (2015) as the 27th practice. The item increase is shown
only in Tables A2 and A4. Accordingly, Zirulnik and Orbe (2019) branded Strategic
strategy-table or matrix as of December 2021. Researchers (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Castle
Bell et al., 2015; Orbe, 2016b; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Root, 2018; Zirulnik & Orbe,
2019) revealed the communication approach and preferred outcome as the two most
76
commonly used co-cultural communication orientation influencing the co-cultural
dominant culture group members include co-cultural communication approach and co-
cultural communication preferred outcome (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Castle Bell et al.,
2015; Orbe, 2016b; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Root, 2018). Of nine primary communication
orientations posited by Orbe (1998) and Orbe and Roberts (2012), the three most favored
(Castle Bell et al., 2015; Orbe, 2016b; Rudick et al., 2017). In 1998, near the inception of
containing what Orbe and Roberts (2012) later dubbed as a lessor-dimensional table
For example, Orbe and Robert’s (2012) table contains the same co-cultural
heading titled, “Example of Practices” (p. 295). Another difference between Orbe’s
(1998) nine-dimensional table and Orbe & Robert’s (2012) two-column table is the
“Brief Description” correlated with each identified Example of Practices (see Table A1).
Castle Bell et al. (2015) introduced “rationalization” as the then-new or 27th co-
Approach” (p. 19). Except for integrating rationalization into Table A2, the initial 26 Co-
77
throughout the years, as evidenced by Orbe (1998a, 1998b), Camara and Orbe (2010),
However, Camara and Orbe (2010) indicated several approaches not otherwise
considered before their 2010 study (noted in Appendix A, Table A4). For example,
Camara and Orbe (2010) highlighted three practices: (a) “Reporting the incident” (p. 96),
(b) “Leaving the situation” (p. 97), and (c) “Reporting to authorities” (p. 103). The
practice” (Camara & Orbe, 2010, pp. 97 & 103), was affixed to the varying tables, as
Although the three practices were included in Camara and Orbe’s (2010) study,
no definitive proclamations were declared. Thus, Castle Bell et al. (2015) introduced
strategy under the assertive assimilation approach. The label rationalization represents an
oppressive speech perpetuated by a dominant culture group member (Castle Bell et al.,
assign an alternative explanation. Thus, the non-dominant culture group member lessens
from the communicative interaction and accountability (Castle Bell et al., 2015).
78
Employing rationalization elevates a dominant culture group member from the
communicative behaviors (Castle Bell et al., 2015, p. 2). An employee feeling included or
work environment (Downey et al., 2015; Hayes-Thomas & Bendick, 2013; Osborne &
clearly the use of one or more co-cultural communication orientations (Camara & Orbe,
210; Downey et al., 2015; Groscurth & Orbe, 2006; Orbe, 1998b; Orbe & Roberts 2012).
aggressive (Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Orbe, 1996, 1998; Orbe & Harris, 2015; Orbe &
and others. However, non-assertive action confines behavior on the passive spectrum of
communicative behavior supports selfishness and direct or harmful speech (Camara &
Orbe, 2010; DeIuliis & Flinko, 2016; Orbe, 1998; Orbe & Roberts, 2012). The three
79
unaware) and situationally (Buzzanell, 1999; Buzzanell et al., 2014; Buzzanell & Lucas,
(Buzzanell, 1999; Buzzanell et al., 2014; Buzzanell & Lucas, 2013; Hays-Thomas &
Bendick, 2013). To the degree possible, assimilation through professional attire means
interviewee (non-dominant culture group member) and the dominant culture group
existing dominant culture hierarchical and institutional structures. On the other hand,
Orbe, 2010). Third, a desired outcome of separation refers to negotiating a distinct group
(Camara & Orbe, 2010). Ironically, disengagement, dissatisfaction, and conflict are
Orbe and Roberts (2012). For example, non-assertive separation and aggressive
separation represent avoidance and intentional barriers to place distance between the non-
80
dominant culture group members and those of the dominant culture group (Orbe &
Roberts, 2012).
United States and that have a communication curriculum, do not necessarily include
culture group (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Cubbage, 2018; Congdon, 2014; DeKay, 2012;
Hopson & Orbe, 2007; Orbe, 1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2005, 2006, 2016b; Orbe &
literature from the inception of the phenomenon has yet to reveal definitively how or
from where members of the non-dominant cultural group learn negotiation and
approaches. Negotiation and navigation in the dominant societal structure are necessary
for professional success and survival (Barkman, 2018; Hopson & Orbe, 2007; Jerome,
(Barkman, 2018; Hopson & Orbe, 2007; Jerome, 2013). Based on some qualitative study
orientation over another (Averbeck-Lietz, 2013; Buzzanell et al., 2014; Buzzanell &
Lucas, 2013; Camara & Orbe, 2010; Orbe & Roberts, 2012).
Orbe and Roberts (2012) determined that non-dominant culture group members
81
(p. 294). Orbe and Roberts (2012) produced a framework providing six insightful factors
communication orientations and approaches to use. The six factors include “preferred
outcome, field of experience, abilities, situational context, perceived costs and rewards,
and communication approach” (Orbe & Roberts, 2012, pp. 296). Of the six preceding
factors listed, “preferred outcome” and “communication approach” (Orbe & Roberts,
Apart from interpersonal and intercultural theories, few studies were conducted
focusing on the experiences of the non-dominant culture group members. Even fewer
studies were conducted using a quantitative research method (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007;
Orbe & Roberts, 2012). As far back as 2012, Orbe and Roberts predicted theorizing co-
communication field of study as has been the exemplar (Castle Bell et al., 2015).
Managers and employees may be unfamiliar with or unable to detect when co-
cultural communication occurs (Barkman, 2018; Castle Bell et al., 2015; DeKay, 2012;
quality of organizational communication (Mammen & Sano, 2012; Mills, 2009; Shoss et
al., 2013, 2013). Co-cultural communication can prompt employee disengagement, job
dissatisfaction, and conflict (Mammen & Sano, 2012; Mills, 2009; Shoss et al., 2013,
2013).
formed mostly by scholars from the dominant culture group using samples from
82
educational institutions (Allen, 2007; Averbeck-Lietz, 2013; Barkman, 2018; Buzzanell,
1999; Crouse et al., 2012; Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Orbe, 2016a; Orbe & Roberts, 2012).
and diversity from the perspectives of the industrial and organizational psychology field
(Allen, 2007; Carerra-Fernandez et al., 2014; Riggio, 2018). Much of the empirical
2018; Bray & Williams, 2017; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Root, 2018).
2015; Orbe, 1996, 1998, 2006; Orbe & Roberts, 2012). Before Orbe entered the research
(1975) explored muted group theory as the dominance of one group causing silence or
managers and individuals of the non-dominant cultural group (Allison & Hibbler, 2004;
Castle Bell et al., 2015; Parker, 2002; Shoss et al., 2013). Often, co-cultural group
engaging in negotiated interactions with leaders of the dominant cultural group and
Hendrix & Wilson, 2014; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Orbe, 1996, 2000, 2005; Richard et al.,
2013).
83
Orbe (2006) proclaimed that early research on co-cultural communication
included minimal perception from the marginalized group members’ standpoint until
revealing the term co-researchers into the qualitative studies (Orbe,1998, 2006, 2005). As
cultural group increased in the workplace (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Herakova, 2012;
Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Meares et al., 2004). Conversely, in 2018 scarcity existed in the
cultural group (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007). Historically, European scholars as members of
the dominant culture group studied co-cultural communication, which included silencing
and muting marginalized, non-dominant culture group members (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007;
communication (Deetz, 2001; Orbe, 1998a, 2016a; Rollock, 2011; Rudick & Golsan,
2016; Scott, 2013). For purposes of this study, micro-aggression refers to the subtle and
work together (Deetz, 2001; Forrest-Bank et al., 2015; Orbe, 2016a; Wing Sue, 2010).
According to Orbe (2016a) and Rudick and Golsan (2016), non-dominant cultural group
non-dominant culture group members during identity negotiation and navigation include
84
Assimilation resembles communicating like the dominant cultural group members
recognition of and association with the dominant culture group while simultaneously
citizenship behavior (Bray & Williams, 2017; Brown & Roloff, 2015). Moreover, one
may continue performing out of professional obligation but without allegiance to the
organization.
Organizational Communication
behavioral. Verbal communication involves tone, affect, speed, and verbal exchanges
body language and written forms such as emails, texting, etcetera. Behavioral or
interactive relationships and networks (Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Rajhans, 2012).
between managers and employees and fosters a work culture and climate more conducive
to improved employee engagement, job satisfaction, and reduced conflict (Ahmed et al.,
2010; Femi, 2014; Gelfand et al., 2012; Shoss et al., 2013). Rajhans (2012) identified the
85
challenging, the drivers identified herein contribute to increased organizational
acceptable communication channel in the workplace for several reasons. For example,
Odine (2015) says the sender can directly access and interact with the receiver in verbal
or nonverbal communication. Also, the sender can observe body language and discern
facial expressions while providing real-time feedback simultaneously. On the other hand,
(sender and receiver) need an awareness of communication barriers (Adler, 1991; Allison
cognitively, behaviorally, and emotionally (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Swarnalatha &
Prasanna, 2013a, 2013b; Zanoni et al., 2010). The authors contend that situational
economic profits and decreased employee retention in the following three fields,
86
Organizational communication from the perspective of industrial and
diversity inclusion (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Riggio, 2018). Castle Bell et al. (2015),
Lapinski and Orbe (2007) and Orbe (1998) distinguished co-cultural communication as a
people of color, who may or may not understand the 28 labels assigned to co-cultural
perspectives (Dulek, 1993; Krapels & Arnold, 1998; Murphy, 1998; Shelby, 1993). In the
first example, in the 1990s, according to Bell and Muir (2014) noted empirical literature
curriculum (Bell & Muir, 2014). In a second example, the school of thought predicted a
future standalone communication discipline, as the researchers advocated support for the
Muir, 2014).
As stated previously and for this study’s purposes, the conceptual framework
ensues Orbe’s (1996, 1998a, 1998b) co-culture communication theory. The co-cultural
87
recent literature (Barkman, 2018; Castle Bell et al., 2015; Holling, 2019; Nuru & Arendt,
2019; Razzante & Orbe, 2018; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). By establishing rationalization as
the 27th and strategic alliance building as the 28th co-cultural communication strategies,
the co-cultural communication theory continues expanding (Castle Bell et al., 2015;
Discussion of Variables
This study included two independent or predictor variables and three dependent or
criterion variables. The variables selected for this study relate to factors informing co-
cultural communication (Orbe, 1998; Orbe & Camara, 2010; Orbe & Roberts, 2012).
Daily interactions between managers and employees are not possible absent effective
employee motivation, satisfaction, and performance. Bray and Williams (2017) indicated
gap between expectations and current state if different from that expected. Murugavel
the workplace. Murugavel and Somaraju (2016) further posited that the interactions
among individuals in the workplace, such as employee to a leader and vice versa,
communication conflict. The study variables derived from numerous studies were
88
conducted qualitatively over time (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Orbe, 1998; Camara & Orbe,
2010; Orbe & Roberts, 2012). Most of the 27 co-cultural communication orientations,
approaches, and preferred outcomes were studied repeatedly with various qualitative
research designs. However, like Lapinski and Orbe’s (2007) study, this present study
represented a unique view of the variables using the quantitative research method.
Employee Engagement
employee performs in the organization, thereby contributing. Thus, this example shows
Orbe, 2010; Castle Bell et al., 2015; Cohen & Avanzino, 2010; Congdon, 2014;
Groscurth & Orbe, 2006; Han & Price, 2017; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Orbe, 2005;
2016b).
one of two categories when compartmentalized into belief systems regarding subordinate
89
attitudes and behaviors (Lawter et al., 2015). First, McGregor posited that managers with
hard and striving to participate actively in the workplace (Lawter et al., 2015; Rajhans,
citizenry behavior in the workplace was tantamount to employee engagement (Camara &
Orbe, 2010; Downey et al., 2015; Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Gillet et al., 2017; Rajhan,
2012; Reio & Reio-Sanders, 2011; Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013b) or employees’ desire
to contribute to the success of the organization (Brown & Roloff, 2015). While
McGregor referred to the constructs of attitudes, behaviors, and performance, more recent
constructs presented in this study, such as employee engagement (Downey et al., 2015;
Gillet et al., 2017; Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013b) and job satisfaction (Goldman &
Myers, 2015; Riggio, 2018; Spector, 1997; Steele & Plenty, 2014).
system wherein employees lack the motivation to work (Emerson & Murphy, 2014;
Gillet et al., 2017; Lawter et al., 2015). Instead, employees need encouragement or
contributions. McGregor declared that managerial attitudes about workers and behaviors
toward workers were driven by the leader’s belief system (Lawter et al., 2015; Rajhans,
2012) and the employees’ perceived organizational support (Brown & Roloff, 2015;
Neves & Eisenberger, 2012; Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017; Shoss et al., 2013).
90
Lawler et al. (2015), further revealed that actions comparable to encouraging a learning
(2015) expressed interest in relationships that occur between and among subordinates and
managers (Lawter et al., 2015). Also, Lawter et al. (2015) noted McGregor’s agreement
employee-manager daily interactions (Bray & Williams, 2017; Lawter et al., 2015; Orbe
& Camara, 2010; Orbe & Warren, 2000; Redd et al., 2011). Daily interactions between
managers and employees are not possible absent effective communication. Similarly,
fostering an organizational climate where the Theory Y managerial beliefs are present, as
Job Satisfaction
satisfaction. Bray and Williams used a correlation design with regression analysis. The
communication satisfaction, developed by Downs and Hazen, and the other for
commitment, developed by Meyer and Allen (Bray & Williams, 2017). The authors drew
Williams, 2017).
91
Interestingly, Bray and Williams (2017) indicated that communication
communication and the communication climate. Bray and Williams (2017) revealed that
employees experiencing positive communication in the workplace will, more likely than
exchange of opposing viewpoints within the workplace” (p. 135). Murugavel and
Somaraju (2016) further posited that the interactions among individuals in the workplace
such as employee to leader and vice versa, influence organizational conflict. On the other
hand, Orbe (2004) referred to the essence of communication as both “complex and
92
Of 38 training vendors responding, the resulting communication strategies were
reduced to one-half dozen training categories lending to conflict reduction and problem
resolution (DeKay, 2012). These training strategies consist of (a) facilitating difficult
conversations, (b) communicating as supervisor, (c) verbal and visual presentations, (d)
coaching / motivational speaking, (e) conversing with stakeholders, and (f) conducting
meetings. Thus, based on the data analysis, DeKay (2012) posited that effective verbal
conflict resolution.
the type of training offered was first reduced to six categories. Secondly, the number of
offers received ranged from seventeen as the highest and two as the lowest depicted in
Figure 1. Finally, percentages of the total offers received ranged from a high of 45% and
Figure 1
Number of Percentage of
Type of Training Offered
Offers Received Total Offers
1. Facilitating Difficult Conversations 17 44.7%
2. Communicating as Supervisor 7 18.4%
3. Verbal & Visual Presentations 5 13.3%
93
According to Turner and Shuter (1997, 2004), their exploratory studies on
workplace conflict from the perception among two groups of women in America
African-American females presented mostly with passivity and negativity with lack of
much regard for conflict resolution. The (2004) study revealed African-American females
using more intense word selection when expressing or communicating workplace conflict
(Turner & Shuter, 2004). On the other hand, the European American counterparts were
viewed as avoiding conflict (1997). However, Brown and Roloff (2015) revealed that
affected employees' feelings when emersed in situational workplace conflict (Brown &
Roloff, 2015).
Unlike Turner and Shuter (2004), Brown and Roloff (2004) indicated non-
conflict in the communicative process (Buzzanell, 1999; Emerson & Murphy, 2014;
Hendrix et al., 2016; Richard et al., 2013; Rollock, 2011; Visagie et al., 2011). Conflict
Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Hendrix et al., 2016; Richard et al., 2013; Rollock, 2011;
94
Negotiating and Navigating
dominant group members. The non-dominant group member negotiates and navigates in
and through the organization to achieve career success (Rajhans, 2012; Scott, 2013) by
organization probably uses any number of Orbe (1998), and Lapinski and Orbe’s (2007)
communication approaches.
dominant culture and a non-dominant group member. Negotiation and navigation also
2014). The non-dominant cultural group member or marginalized group members learn to
negotiate and navigate discursive closure (Christensen et al., 2015; Orbe, 1996), without
significant concern of emotions or emotional constraints (Gillet et al., 2017; Liu et al.,
2010). According to Orbe (2016b) and others (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Orbe & Roberts,
2012; Rajhans, 2012; Root, 2018), some non-dominant culture group members have
negotiate and navigate (Scott, 2013; Worthen, 2008) similarly to choosing preferred
95
Quality of Communication
engagement, satisfaction, and reduced conflict (Ahmed et al., 2010; Bray & Williams,
2017; Femi, 2014; Gelfand et al., 2012). Rajhans (2012) indicated several potential
culture group members use (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Orbe, 1996, 1998). According to
Castle Bell et al. (2015), rationalization is a new category, which increased the number of
performance, while Femi (2014), Kugler and Brodbeck (2014), Rajhans (2012), and
96
where employees perceive the organization as supportive of diversity and inclusion,
employees are more apt to engage in organizational citizenship behavior. Shuler et al.
committed employee is one who completes tasks, although the functions may be outside
the contractual job description (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Shuler et al., 2016). Other duties
citizenship behavior by performing tasks outside the required and expected work
decision-making).
Brown and Roloff (2015), Richard et al. (2013), and Shuler et al. (2016) asserted
that organizational citizenship behavior stemmed from the employees’ perception of the
leaders’ organizational support. Omilion-Hodges and Baker (2017) and Shoss et al.
(2012) suggested that the perception of organizational support influenced the employees’
97
resultant organizational citizenship behavior. For example, the high and low leader
Hodges & Baker, 2017). Omilion-Hodges and Baker (2017) created a self-report
either help or hinder effective communication among leaders and subordinate employees.
Bray and Williams (2017), like many researchers (Brown & Roloff, 2015; Odine, 2015;
Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017), support the notion of effective communication in the
which also transforms into employee commitment. In this respect, Omilion-Hodges and
Baker (2017) attributed the frequency and quality of communication as the leader’s role.
the interpersonal communicative relationship with the leader may affect an employee’s
Similarly, in Shoss et al. (2013), the employees’ perspective of the organizational support
leaders received from the organization influenced the employees’ performance and
98
retaliation. The employees’ performance and revenge were in opposition to the
organizational support” (Shoss et al., 2013, p. 158) correlated with the employees’
blaming the organization for “abusive supervision” (Shoss et al., 2013, p. 158). The study
further revealed that less than optimal communicative interaction among employees and
Unlike Omilion-Hodges and Baker (2017), and Shoss et al. (2013), Allen (2007)
Furthermore, Allen (2007) contended that organizational culture (as part of employees’
“internalized oppression” (Allen, 2007, p. 260). Diversity with the inclusion component
partially makes up the organizational climate (Richard et al., 2013). Like Richard et al.
(2013), Allen (2005; 2007) posited employees’ perceptions have a role in the hesitation
99
Diversity and Diversity Inclusion
minorities and females entering the American workforce (Hays-Thomas & Bendick,
2013; Suh & Lee, 2016). Such support was evident based on 75% of the large
organizations managing diverse workforces (Hays-Thomas & Bendick, 2013; Suh & Lee,
2016). Hays-Thomas and Bendick (2013) discovered that large and medium-sized
inclusion initiatives each year. Hays-Thomas and Bendick (2013) further discovered an
diversity and diversity inclusion initiatives. Of the nearly 5,000 consultants and
practitioners who provided the diversity and diversity inclusion training and services,
Hays-Thomas and Bendick (2013) among others (Bendick et al., 2001; Forbes, 1997; the
Society for Human Resource Management, 2010) noted that 7,000 consultants were
members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP, 2015).
terminology (Sherbin & Rashid, 2017). However, according to Sherbin and Rashid
identity representation. Suh and Lee (2016) restricted the diversity definition to those
individuals.
100
Further application by Hays-Thomas and Bendick (2013) included an operational
characteristics such as cognition, behavior, and emotions are discussed later in this
(2015). Unlike Hays-Thomas and Bendick (2013), Orbe (2016b) noted cultural
differences and similarities in the workplace influence employees’ identity. In this respect
and as an advocate of diversity and diversity inclusion in the workplace, Verna Myers, as
quoted by Sherbin and Rashid (2017), defined diversity as “being invited to the party.
Inclusion is being asked to dance” once at the party (Sherbin & Rashid, 2017, p. 1).
Sherbin and Rashid (2017) indicated that without the nexus between diversity and
inclusion in the workplace, diversity alone could lead to negative outcomes, which
Richard et al. (2013) referred to as workplace conflict. For example, Sherbin and
Americans, 52% of other minorities (e.g., Asians & Hispanics), and 7% of European
American leaders felt an obligation to support or mentor employees of the same ethnicity
or culture as themselves. Sherbin and Rashid (2017) compiled research data using a
The authors of a study referring to researching the darkness of diversity noted that
an African-American female has the ability to and “sees perspectives of race...that reside
[sic] in the darkness for many people” (Hendrix et al., 2016, p. 106). The awareness of
experiences, such as what has occurred already, what is happening currently, what may
101
appear going forward, and what is unlikely to occur. In fact, without the “dual
consciousness” (Hendrix et al., 2016, p. 106) of ethnicity and gender, one may only
aspire to understand the invisible and muted experiences (Hendrix et al., 2016).
(Hendrix et al., 2016). While gender identity aligns with diversity, Hendrix et al. (2016),
among other researchers (Frey & Palmer, 2014), questioned if diversity was moot and
should be phased out, adopting the word difference as a replacement term. Orbe’s
research from various perspectives, disciplines, and fields of study (Orbe, 2016b).
a study on workplace challenges from a lack of inclusion. Riggio (2018) put forth that
while increased diversity presents challenges in the workplace, diversity also strengthens
opportunity and advantage. Several such advantages include: the varying perspectives
Diversity
102
(Buzzanell, 1999) in an organization. In 2013, Hays-Thomas and Bendick noted
individuals and leaders respond to and among each other (Hays-Thomas & Bendick,
2013). For example, linking diversity with inclusion meant cognitively shifting to
Diversity Inclusion
interactions or the quality of communication and support (Liu et al., 2010). Feeling
engagement (Hay-Thomas & Bendick, 2013; Hynes, 2012), and conflict (Rajhans, 2012).
possibilities for achieving higher productivity levels when lower-level, basic life needs
are met (Jerome, 2013). Of the five tiers from lowest to highest, Maslow did not consider
social interactions and managerial attention. From the bottom up, the third tier--situated
above the first two lower-level needs, indicates the desire to belong (Jerome, 2013).
Inclusion linked to diversity creates diversity inclusion (Hays-Thomas & Bendick, 2013).
Ensuring the implementation and practice of diversity inclusion lies with the
103
organization, as does accountability of leaders and the workforce (Ahmed et al., 2010;
Hays-Thomas & Bendick, 2013; Liu et al., 2010 Richard et al., 2013; Shoss et al., 2013).
Steele and Plenty (2014) distinguished diversity inclusion by the degree to which
that valuing diversity influences organizational culture or climate and may lead to
“reduced organizational conflict” (p. 18). Reggio (2018) further declared that diversity,
Diversity inclusion and diversity management involve the context for constructs
among individuals from different cultural groups (Brannick, 2014; Ferdman & Sagiv,
2012; Han & Price, 2017; Orbe, 1998a, 2016b; Orbe & Harris, 2015; Richard et al.,
culture group’s, identity negotiation, and navigation (Scott, 2013). The historical content
Constraints
dominant culture group members (Adler, 1991; Allison & Hibbler, 2004; Cubbage, 2018;
Heim et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2010; Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017; Rajhans, 2012;
Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013). Psychological and controversial constraints seen and
104
unseen or audible and muted, such as cognitive, behavioral, and emotional, or cultural
Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1978; Liu et al., 2010; Martin & Nakayama, 2015; Orbe,
group members' citizenry behavior results from the reorientation of thoughts and feelings
(emotion) of inclusion (Hays-Thomas & Bendick, 2013; Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1978;
(Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017; Shoss et al., 2013). According to Orbe (2016b) and
other researchers (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Orbe & Roberts, 2012; Rajhans, 2012; Root,
and accommodation) within the American workplace (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Orbe &
Roberts, 2012). The negotiation and navigation do not occur without inconspicuous
105
Cognitive Constraints
and operational coding (Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1978). Striving to survive by achieving
a status other than invisible or muted enhances the employees' perceptions of and
inclusion in the workplace culture, which affects satisfaction positively (Bray &
Williams, 2017; Emerson & Murphy, 2014; Goldman & Myers, 2015; Odine, 2015;
Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017; Steele & Plenty, 2014). Overcoming invisibility and
muteness affects employee engagement positively (Downey et al., 2015; Gillet et al.,
constraints also reduces workplace conflict (Castaneda et al., 2013; DeKay, 2012;
Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1978; Kugler & Brodbeck, 2014; Murugavel & Somaraju, 2016;
Orbe & Warren, 2000; Riggio, 2018; Turner & Shuter, 2004). Cognitive constraints
individuals' thoughts and beliefs relying on thought processes and information processing
(Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1978; Liggett, 2014). Although Heradstveit and Narvesen's
(1978) study applied to matters or problems of international or foreign policy, the study
findings were generalizable to predicting how decision-makers may select the solution to
a problem. Thus, the individuals' thought processes and information processing occurred
using some form of written communication regardless of whether the decision was
106
foreign policy or a decision in an American organization (Heradstveit & Narvesen, 1978).
The study showed that leaders' decision-making and problem resolution behavior was
Behavioral Constraints
Hodges & Baker, 2017; Shuler et al., 2016). Instead of demonstrating citizenship
communicatively interacting with members of the dominant culture group (Brown &
Roloff, 2015).
Shore et al. (2011) performed a study to investigate diverse workplace teams. The
relative to race and gender. Additionally, Shore et al. (2011) showed a lack of
entering the workforce. Performance behavior was affected when leaders (regardless of
107
Behavioral and performance constraints, synonymous with physical constraints,
are visible or invisible and silent or muted (Hendrix et al., 2016). Shore et al. (2011)
termed race and gender visible and salient. Similarly, this current study's African-
American female research samples are visible and salient. Silencing or muting those
behavior, and feelings-emotions (Heim et al., 2011; Rajhans, 2012). The non-dominant
culture or marginalized group members learn to negotiate and navigate discursive closure
(Orbe, 1996) without significant emotions or emotional constraints (Gillet et al., 2017).
Emotional Constraints
psychologically” (Camara & Orbe, 2010, p. 85). Exposing a co-cultural group member to
muted) “becomes coded into memories” (Camara & Orbe, 2010, p. 85). Consequently, a
non-dominant culture group member may not feel safe interacting communicatively in a
leader-member exchange (Buzzanell, 1999; Goldman & Myers, 2015). Instead, a non-
dominant culture group member adapts to the workplace communication and behavior by
assimilating (Buzzanell, 1999; Goldman & Myers, 2015), accommodating (Groscurth &
Orbe, 2006; Orbe, 2016b; Trotter et al., 2013), or separating (Congdon, 2014). On the
108
Hendrix and Wilson (2014) explored the silencing and muting of non-dominant
culture group members beyond the workplace challenges. Hendrix and Wilson (2014)
professors) in the workplace and academic settings. For example, Hendrix and Wilson
(2014) identified gaps in the literature regarding the invisibleness and oppression of
Hendrix and Wilson (2014) further explained, the dominant culture group leaders
direct the workplace communicative culture or climate. Jerome (2013), like Maslow
(1943), suggested that basic survival needs may link to workplace culture. Jerome (2013)
conducive to the basic survival needs identified by Maslow (1943). In defining the
dominated.
norms learned and supported over time. According to Jerome (2013), workplace culture
workforce with high regard for citizenship behavior. Citizenship behavior includes job
Methodology Literature
Bryman, 1984; Camara & Orbe, 2010; Groscurth & Orbe, 2006; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007;
109
Orbe, 1995, 1998a, 1998b; Orbe & Roberts, 2012), the quantitative research method
(Bray & Williams, 2017) was used for this study. The quantitative research method is
expressed variables (Cozby & Bates, 2012). However, most research conducted in co-
designs (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Orbe, 1998a, 1998b; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). For
Bell et al., 2015; Orbe, 1998a, 1998b; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019).
and themes and exploration of how and why phenomena happen (Morris & Monroe,
2009; Yin, 2006). Qualitative designs also allow inductive reasoning to study reality
perceptions (Emerson & Murphy, 2014), as defined by the observer. Although using a
introducing bias or individual perspectives (Bryman, 1984; Rozas & Klein, 2010). Since
variables, and the focus of qualitative research is discovering motivations and opinions, a
In 2007, Lapinski and Orbe developed the first quantitative co-cultural theory
scale to investigate co-cultural communication strategies. Since 2007, studies citing the
110
co-cultural theory or co-cultural communication are designed using quantitative research
methods (Razzante & Orbe, 2018; Rudick et al., 2017). This quantitative methodology's
strength with the correlational design is in showing support or a lack of support for a
American females in the workplace. A correlational design and regression analysis will
be used to determine if any relationship exists among the independent and dependent
indicated that correlational analysis is an appropriate statistical technique for use when
195).
researcher's manipulation of variables (Fassinger & Morrow, 2013; Leedy & Ormrod,
2010). After variable manipulation, the researcher determines if a difference exists in the
independent variable's effect on each group's dependent variable (Ellis & Levy, 2009).
An experimental analysis was inappropriate for this study because the desire was to
relationship exists between variables (Ellis & Levy, 2009; Prematunga, 2012; Rusagara
111
& Sreedhara, 2017). The focus of this study was to determine if a predictive relationship
existed between communication approaches, preferred outcomes, and job satisfaction for
was unwarranted for this study. Correlation analysis does not indicate causation, even
when the relationship between independent and dependent variables is strong (Paul &
Cozby, 2012). No group comparisons occurred among the participants in this study.
Conclusions
Some conclusions or study findings derived from the literature review signified
situationally (Buzzanell, 1999; Castle Bell et al., 2015; Congdon, 2014; Goldman &
any one of three desired outcomes (Kramarae, 2005; Richard et al., 2013; Orbe, 1996,
1998, 2005, 2006, 2012, 2016). Determining the desired outcome depends mainly on a
requires assimilating with or separating from the dominant culture group (Orbe, 1998a;
negotiation and navigation through an organization (Nuru & Arendt, 2019; Orbe, 2014;
Razzante, 2018a, 2018b; White & Ali-Kahn, 2013). Literature supports little if any
112
academic curriculum in the American colleges and universities on either using or
selecting for use the different co-cultural communication strategies (Cubbage, 2o18;
psychology standpoint (Rauschenberger & Mellon, 2014). The dominant culture group
members lead the American workforce, thereby establishing the communication culture
or climate (Averbeck-Lietz, 2013; Cubbage, 2018; Odine, 2015; Redd et al., 2011; Shuler
et al., 2016). As leaders, the dominant culture group members manage the organizational
communication strategy based on outcome as the most effective. Instead, Root (2017)
provided rationales and scenarios for teaching, assessing, and fostering familiarity with
privileged or dominant group members. Castle Bell et al. (2015) asserted the co-cultural
“the theory-building process” (p. 3). This present study, with an emphasis on co-cultural
organizational psychology.
Chapter Summary
salient in creating the lens from which the co-cultural communication framework derived.
113
A review of the literature illustrated co-cultural communication with various
communication terminology (e.g., keywords, title searches, and articles). The co-cultural
communication strategies relate theoretically; however, this study's two strategies are
Two co-cultural communication approaches guiding the study were assertive and
keywords and titles searches, with an analysis of articles resulting from a systematic
literature review.
and workplace diversity, provided much of the framework for this study. The literature
review and the co-cultural communication discussions included the variables, quality
and emotional constraints (Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013). A detailed discussion of the
quantitative research method with a correlation design and multiple regression analysis
follows Chapter 3.
114
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
was used to determine if any relationship exists among the independent and dependent
variables (Bryman, 1984; Leatham, 2012; Prematunga, 2012). The quantitative research
method and correlational design were appropriate for this study based on several reasons,
relationships between variables in terms of "magnitude and significance" (p. 195). The
(Prematunga, 2012; Rajhan, 2012). The multiple regression analysis is appropriate for the
correlational design because the researcher can identify the predictor (independent)
variables and dependent (criterion) variables while also allowing more than one predictor
to be part of the model simultaneously. Presented in this Chapter 3 are discussions on the
population with study power and sample size, sampling method, informed consent and
criterion variables occurred in this study. The predictor variables were assertive
(assimilation) and non-assertive (separation) (Congdon, 2014; Groscurth & Orbe, 2006;
Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Orbe, 1996, 1998a, 1998b). The criterion variables included
115
employee engagement/disengagement, job satisfaction/dissatisfaction, and workplace
conflict (e.g., miscommunication and message confusion); each were investigated for any
relationship with the independent variables. Emerson and Murphy (2014) revealed
trigger the stigmatized members' perceptions. For example, the stigmatized members
The terms method and methodology represent varying analyses and are frequently
used interchangeably (Bryman, 1984). Fassinger and Morrow (2013) posited that the
specifically, determining the independent and dependent variables can help guide the
researcher in selecting the appropriate statistical tool (Fassinger & Morrow, 2013).
Depending on the research questions and hypotheses, the study variables are distinctly
independent and dependent (Prematunga, 2012). Leatham (2012) justified the scientific
methods. In support of the scientific process, Leatham (2012) explicated that math
Research Method
The research questions and hypotheses of this study are consistent with the use of
116
investigating the relationship between two numerical, or quantitatively, expressed
variables (Cozby & Bates, 2012). The quantitative method aimed to answer the research
study was performed to collect and analyze numerical data. Factors from two valid and
reliable instruments (Orbe & Lapinski, 2007; Spector, 1985, 1997) were used to collect
The data were collected using both an instrument which assesses factors relating
Orbe, 2007; Rudick et al., 2017), and the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1985, 1997).
Both instruments are validated and generate interval data. Some researchers view surveys
as the preferred instrument of quantitative method because surveys are easily adapted to
many situations (Crouse Quinn et al., 2012; Neuman, 2011). Researchers can administer
a study using the same survey (Hendrix & Wilson, 2014). Also, surveys are suited for
the data collected (Cozby & Bates, 2012). The data were collected using two existing,
approaches and preferred outcome measures (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Rudick et al.,
2017). The other instrument was Spector's (1985, 1997) validated Job Satisfaction
117
Survey. Both instruments generate interval level data. The two validated surveys form the
instrumentation for this study and enable the researcher to collect and examine
quantitative data for any relationship between the two predictor variables of assertiveness
A quantitative method was used in this study. Cubbage (2018) and Murugavel and
Somaraju (2016) observed, the researcher's subjective preferences, biases, and values,
which should not affect the research. The researcher can state the research problem in
specific terms and use controlled observation, limiting the researcher's bias and
qualitative research method with various designs (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Orbe, 1998a,
1998b; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). For instance, the phenomenological method includes
and inductive characteristics, to name a few (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Orbe, 1998a, 1998b;
Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Consequently, in a qualitative study, the researcher is the
instrument. To avoid the potential for bias, the researcher decided against being the
instrument.
population (Cozby & Bates, 2012; Parylo, 2012; Prematunga, 2012; Udovičić et al.,
2007). However, the correlation research design with inferential statistics determines if
118
any relationship is expressed between two quantitative variables (Cozby & Bates, 2012;
Parylo, 2012). Quantitative research forms conclusions based on collecting and analyzing
Conversely, qualitative methods are used to discover patterns and themes and explore
how and why phenomena happen (Morris & Monroe, 2009; Yin, 2006).
(Emerson & Murphy, 2014) defined by the observer. In comparison, using qualitative
research designs allows the discovery of patterns and themes and exploration of how and
why phenomena happen (Morris & Monroe, 2009; Yin, 2006). Qualitative designs also
allow inductive reasoning to study reality perceptions (Emerson & Murphy, 2014), as
detail, the qualitative methods did not determine whether relationships exist between
variables without introducing bias or individual perspectives (Bryman, 1984; Rozas &
Klein, 2010). Since the purpose of this study was to determine if a predictive relationship
motivations and opinions, a qualitative method was deemed inappropriate for this study.
The researcher chose not to use a qualitative methodology because this study
aimed to determine if a predictive relationship existed between variables. Given the focus
inappropriate for this study. Another reason for deciding not to perform a qualitative
study was the distance involved between potential respondents and inability to
119
differing venues in the United States, thereby deeming that acquiring qualitative data can
pose problems. Thus, the quantitative method was considered the best approach to
related to African-American females in the workplace. Ellis and Levy (2009) stated that
analysis of the relationship between at least two variables (Paul & Cozby, 2012).
such as comparative designs (Ellis & Levy, 2009; Fassinger & Morrow, 2013). The stated
differences made a correlational design ideal for examining the relationship between
The purpose of this study was to determine if a predictive relationship existed between
variables.
variables (Fassinger & Morrow, 2013; Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). In an experimental
design, a researcher uses two or more groups that receive different treatments of the
120
independent variable (Meyers et al., 2013). A researcher then determines if a difference
exists in the independent variable's effect on the dependent variable in each group (Ellis
& Levy, 2009). The researcher in this study did not choose an experimental analysis
exists between variables (Ellis & Levy, 2009; Prematunga, 2012; Rusagara & Sreedhara,
2017; Bryman, 1984; Sampson, 2012). The focus of this study was to determine if a
and job satisfaction for one group of African-American female participants, thus making
causation, even when the relationship between independent and dependent variables is
strong (Paul & Cozby, 2012). No group comparisons occurred among the participants in
this study. Three research questions and three sets of hypotheses were considered in this
study.
Research Questions
Three research questions were narrow and involved a single group of females in
States instead of global or virtual organizations without brick and mortar (Agnihotri,
2015) United States of America soil. The three research questions focusing this study and
121
dominant culture group females in the workplace?
RQ2: How does communication approach relate to job dissatisfaction for non-
Research Hypotheses
The factors derived from the co-cultural theory communication approach and
preferred outcomes and the Job Satisfaction Survey tools tested the null hypotheses of
three sets of statistical hypotheses. According to Light et al. (1990), the null hypotheses
are either accepted or failed to accept. The hypotheses' formulation characterized the
research variables and explained the dependent variables, focus on the relationships of
interest and whether statistical support was evident. Hence the following three sets of
Hypotheses - Disengagement
122
H2a: A statistically significant relationship exists between the use of Orbe’s
Hypotheses - Dissatisfaction
Hypotheses - Conflict
123
H60: No statistically significant relationship exists between the use of Orbe’s
The sample for this study will derived from a population of African-American
females either working for or who have worked in an American established business
operating in the United States instead of a virtual or global organization. The samples
included African-American females from ages 21-years and up with no upper limit, who
meet the study criteria as will be self-reported and deemed appropriate for participation.
While most regions throughout the United States deem those individuals at least 21 years
old can participate in research studies, there are three limitations: Mississippi requires
Like Lapinski and Orbe (2007), the study participants' self-reporting of their
were the targeted population. The sample may have occupied either one or both job-
having experience interacting with, reporting to, or accountable to, or for another. The
participating students could include individuals who either had attended or were
attending a public or private academic institution. The participants were selected as they
124
could provide insight to determine if co-cultural communication practices remain true in
Although not eligible for nor participating in this present study, some non-
dominant culture group members in certain United States regions or geographic locations
begin paid-work experience as early as age 15 years old, in summer jobs, or vocational,
a Hayward, California, high school advertised student employment job openings for
More likely than not, such programs are temporarily suspended. Such programs generally
included school facilities (cafeteria), fast food industries, and community recreational
personal communication, April 2, 2019). Most regions throughout the United States deem
Sample
the idea of others (Triola, 2008). Introducing bias with the convenience sampling method
125
is possible because convenience sampling does not represent an entire population. Using
convenience sampling, the researcher chooses the individuals most accessible, rather than
A random sampling approach was not feasible for this study because the study
different groups at a single point in time and does not contribute to determining cause and
The questionnaire was accessible for up to two weeks (14 consecutive days). By
the survey closing date, enough viable surveys needed for a rigorous study manifested.
No additional data collection time was triggered, which meant enough data were
collected to meet the targeted number of viable surveys. The study parameters required a
minimum of 77 surveys. With the 20% cushion of 15.4, no less than 100 viable surveys
were needed. Of the 209 surveys returned, 89 did not meet the most recent five-year work
experience. The data analyses included 120 viable surveys included in the data analyses.
those used by the Qualtrics Panel service. Coordination included Black-American and
organizations varied. Interested individuals could access the Qualtrics questionnaire link
collected. Individuals accessing the Qualtrics link could review the preliminary
information before entering the survey. For example, the invitation page included the
126
purpose and benefit of the dissertation study and the survey terms and conditions, such as
withdraw from the study after submitting the survey because the researcher had no
information nor any way of associating a questionnaire with any participant. The
(https://multimedia.phoenix.edu).
"Decline" to either participate in the research study or not to participate. Selecting Accept
Otherwise, to select Decline meant an individual was denied further access and, instead,
Geographic Location
The study locations encompassed broad outreach to the online forums within the
United States. Qualtrics Audience has access to varying masses of individuals. Qualtrics
via different electronic or digital devices. Such as computers and laptops, smartphones,
and iPads. As long as an individual had access to download the questionnaire from the
longer available.
127
Study Power and Sample Size
An a priori power analysis was performed to determine the sample size needed to
power the study (Algina & Olejnik, 2010; Meyers et al., 2013). Pearson's product-
moment correlation analysis and three multiple linear regression analyses were performed
on the data collected. The Pearson correlation measures the strength of a relationship
between two variables, while the multiple linear regression analysis uses explanatory
variables to predict the outcome of a variable. (Meyers et al., 2013). Power is (1-β),
where β is the chance of Type II error--when one rejects the null hypothesis when it is
false. At a power of .80, one has an 80% chance of seeing significance truly in the data.
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences™ data analysis software (Algina & Olejnik,
2010; Meyers et al., 2013; Ozgur et al., 2015) was used to determine the sample size of
participants needed for this study. The first power analysis was performed for a two-
tailed test of correlation, with an alpha level of .05, power of .80, and r = .30 as an effect
size. The two-tailed test checks the null hypothesis of zero correlation between two
variables. The left-tailed test checks the null hypotheses of non-negative, and the right-
tailed checks the null hypotheses non-positive correlation. The results indicated that to
Furthermore, the sample size required for adequate power in the multiple linear
regressions derived from the Statistical Package for Social Science™ data analysis
software using an alpha level of .05, power of .80, and an effect size 0.15, a medium
effect according to Cohen (1992) and Meyers et al. (2013). The minimum sample size
required to power the multiple regressions was 77 participants. However, to account for
possible incomplete surveys or missing data, a 20% cushion was added to the sample size
128
of 82. Therefore, all attempts were made to collect no less than 100 viable records for the
study (n = 120).
research. This means the first step to conducting academic research is obtaining approval
from the Doctor for the Dissertation Chair, then the Committee Members perform the
Quality Review. Upon approval by the Dissertation Team, the next step involves the
(IRB). The IRB reviews the Dissertation Proposal and evaluates the data collection
confidentiality, and privacy are imperative, as are signed informed consent documents
Informed Consent
consent and guidance. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) website contained several
Appendix E is an Informed Consent for Participants 21 Years of Age and Older (long-
form). Appendix F is Guidance for Online Surveys and IRB Waiving Documentation of
the shortened introductory page of the Communication and Job Satisfaction Survey. In
addition to a shortened version of the informed consent, the 7.9 Flesch readability met the
129
IRB criteria. Finally, Appendix H contains the Statement on the Process for
The Guidance for Waiver/Adjusted Informed Consent, the invitation for study
G). An adjusted informed consent short-version (Appendix F), was provided on the
survey. Respondents selecting "Decline" were exited out of the Qualtrics platform.
Additionally, each participant completing the study in the online platform was asked first
to review the informed consent (Appendix G). An individual who understood the study's
nature and voluntarily agreed to participate was further instructed to select "Next" to
and backward, and to stop and continue later. The instruction, Appendix G, indicated that
forward in the study. Appendix F also informed the study participants about withdrawing
from the study at any time without consequences. Withdrawal from the study would
(Appendix G) contained easy instructions for withdrawing and the practitioner's contact
telephone number, and electronic mail address. No voluntary participant withdrew from
130
Confidentiality
Assurance to the study participants of the confidentiality and privacy of any data
collected was provided in writing in advance of the participants responding to the survey
was needed nor collected in the survey. For example, no names, dates of birth, addresses,
Nonetheless, the electronic survey results were downloaded from Qualtrics and
protected MacBookPro, data were backed up onto an encrypted, external hard drive. The
hard drive was saved and stored when not in use. Additionally, as a temporary backup,
the Qualtrics data were managed and saved onto an encrypted, universal serial bus
(USB), flash drive. Qualtrics automatically assigned or linked survey data by numerical
coding. If a participant terminated participation in the study prematurely, and data were
collected but not yet analyzed, the individual's responses could be excluded from the
study. The participants' anonymity would remain and confidential data protected (Crouse
or not. Study results were reported in a manner that protected the research participants’
information. The data were deleted from the researcher’s computer and hard drive
131
storage. Data collected remained on a password-protected USB flash drive. The password
protected USB flash drive was stored in a locked, fireproof safe. Any hardcopy or
duplicate data resulting from the data analysis were shredded after the analyses were
completed (Crouse Quinn et al., 2012). However, electronic data on the external drive
(https://multimedia.phoenix.edu).
Instrumentation
Section "1" with Likert-type scaled response items retrieved from two sources (see
Appendices B1 and B2, Sections 2 and 3). The first source in Sections 2 is the
Communication Questionnaire (manual and automated) (CQ; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007;
Rudick et al., 2017). The second source in Sections 3, is the Job Satisfaction Survey
(Spector, 1985, 1997). Authors of both instruments provided written approval granting
permission to use the instruments (see Appendices J1, J2, & K). Lapinski and Orbe, and
(2017) used the same Communication Questionnaire in their study titled, "Comparing
approval to use the instrument (C. K. Rudick, personal communication, June 5, 2018).
Second, permission to use the Job Satisfaction Survey in Appendix K was granted in an
132
instruments free of charge came with conditional provisions instructing the researcher
how and where to share the study results. The researcher commits to following up with
the instrument developers in sharing the study results after the dissertation publication.
Communication Questionnaire
Of the two instruments selected for this study, the Communication Questionnaire
was first developed by Lapinski and Orbe (2007) and later refined in a study by Rudick et
assimilation, and separation were analyzed in the present study. Possible response scores
from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always), as adapted from Lapinski and Orbe (2007) and Rudick et
Figure 2
1 2 3 4 5
The items for each of the four selected factors were averaged into factor scores, and the
factor scores were used in the analyses. The factor scores for assertiveness and non-
assertiveness were used as the independent variables (Leatham, 2012; Orbe, 2016; Odine,
133
2015; Omilion-Hodges & Baker, 2017; Rudick et al., 2017). The two Preferred Outcome
factors, assimilation and separation, were used as proxies for the criterion variables of
The Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1985, 1997) measures job satisfaction in
any organization. Spector developed the Job Satisfaction Survey (1985, 1997) to access
Survey instrument is feasible for any organization, public and private (Spector 1997). The
participants rate using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree very much) to 6
(agree very much) as shown in Figure 3. Two paraphrased sample statements of the Job
Satisfaction Survey include: (a) I like my coworkers and (b) raises occur sporadically
(Spector, 1997). The Job Satisfaction Survey takes approximately 5 minutes to complete.
A total score is derived from the sum of scores from the 36 items (Spector 1985, 1997);
the total score was used as a proxy to measure the criterion variable of disengagement.
Figure 3
Agree Moderately
Agree slightly
1 2 3 4 5 6
134
Validity and Reliability
justifiable and meaningful conclusions from data about a population or sample and to
assess the extent to which an instrument measures the identified variables. Straub (1989),
possible measure of the investigated variables. Researchers use validity to provide the
foundation for making meaningful conclusions from an instrument score (Paul & Cozby,
2012). Reliability measures how consistently an instrument produces the same results
when the unit measured has not changed. Cozby and Bates (2015) stated that reliability is
the consistency of the results obtained when researchers use the instrument with different
comparing the Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranges acquired through study repetition.
Reliability allows researchers to ensure that measures display stability across the
The Job Satisfaction Survey has been used extensively and validated in the
literature (Astrauskaite et al., 2011; Spector, 1997; Van Saane et al., 2003). During the
investigation, including pilot studies, to ensure the Job Satisfaction Survey instrument's
validity and reliability (Survey in Appendix B, Section 3). Appendix L provides the
Description for the Job Satisfaction Survey, including the accompanying subscales.
Appendix M provides the Instructions for Scoring the Job Satisfaction Survey. Spector
(1997) discovered alpha coefficient values of .60 to .91 ranges. Van Saane et al. (2003)
stated that Spector's (1985, 1997) Job Satisfaction Survey was one of only seven job
135
satisfaction instruments to meet the validity and reliability criteria established in the Van
Saane et al. (2003) study. Spector (1997) tested for reliability by assessing the
instrument's internal consistency and the test-retest coefficient. The time between the
initial test and the retest for the Job Satisfaction Survey was 18 months. Spector (1997)
did not discover any responsiveness to change but noted, however, an initial internal
consistency of 0.91 and a retest of 0.71. The initial test coefficient had to be at least 0.80,
and the retest coefficient had to be at least 0.70 for Spector (1997) to consider the test
reliable. The authors, Van Saane et al. (2003), tested the degree of inclusion of the nine
work factors investigated in the survey and found that the Job Satisfaction Survey
displayed a convergent validity of 0.61 to 0.80 when compared with the Job Descriptive
Index. Astrauskaite et al. (2011) found alpha coefficients ranging from 0.60 to 0.82 and
concluded that the Job Satisfaction Survey is a valid instrument to measure job
satisfaction.
Lapinski and Orbe (2007) originally developed and established the validity and
reliability of the Communication Questionnaire. The items Lapinski and Orbe (2007)
developed included the communication approach (CAPPR) and preferred outcomes (PO).
Lapinski and Orbe (2007) conducted two studies at different intervals. Lapinski and
Orbe's (2007) two studies were somewhat similar except for study number two,
addressing the limitations revealed in study number one. For example, the populations
differed between the two studies. Lapinski and Orbe's (2007) first study included college
students with an average age of around 21. Study one contained numerous ethnicities and
two genders, male and female. On the other hand, study two had only African-American
136
Additionally, study number two involved several existing instruments used to
create and test the construct validity and reliability. Lapinski and Orbe (2007) extracted
Apprehension," and the "Perspective Taking Scale" (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007, p. 153). The
preferred communication outcomes (PO), which the authors asserted were tendencies
and used factor analysis, among other statistical methods (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007, p.
144). For example, a confirmatory factor analysis was used to estimate the parameters
(Lapinski & Orbe, 2007, p. 145). Confirmatory factor analysis as a statistical tool test
measured variables for the representation of the number of constructs. In study number
two, the authors adjusted the instruction to the research participants. Instead of retaining
the open-ended and broad instruction statement from the first study, the authors modified
the instruction statement by inserting a time frame from which the participants would
reflect in responding to the survey questions. The revised instructions provided a specific
The following questions ask you to think about your general communication
patterns and what you might typically do or not do when you are/were in a
situation as the only minority group member. In other words, you were the only
137
Using the scale provided in which 1=Never [True] and 5=Always [True]. Please
circle [fill-in the circle manually or click on the choice electronically] the number
that best represents your behavior how you usually communicate with others
when you are a minority within a group. (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007, p. 155).
The one-year reflection period provided a frame of reference for the participants.
The authors performed the "tests of internal consistency, parallelism, and reliability"
(Lapinski & Orbe, 2007, p. 155) for the Communication Questionnaire and the existing
scales. The "correlations were calculated among" and between the dimensions of the
(Lapinski & Orbe, 2007, p. 155). Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients in the studies
ranged from .66 to .81 (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007). A Cronbach alpha of .70 or higher
represents good, with incremental increases boosting the ranking to better at .80 and best
at .90 or higher.
Preferred Outcome Measures tool developed by Lapinski and Orbe (2007) included three
produced a "two-factor solution with seven items" (Rudick et al., 2017, p. 6). The authors
(Rudick et al., 2017) concurred with Lapinski and Orbe (2007) in that assertiveness as the
first factor included four items; the second factor, non-assertiveness has three items; the
third factor representing aggression did not emerge. The three preferred outcome
measures "produced a three-factor solution with eleven items" (Rudick et al., 2017, p. 6).
138
Assimilation and accommodation as the first and second preferred outcome factors,
respectively, each included four items. Separation, the third factor, had three items
Data Collection
Qualtrics host site, requiring a subscription. The Qualtrics design summary indicated the
(2007) questionnaire and Spector's (1997) survey are presented in Appendices B1 and B2
under Sections 2 and 3, respectively. Section B1 contains the manual versions used to
upload into the Qualtrics platform, and Section B2 shows the upload results.
The data collection period remained open for approximately two weeks until 100
viable records were obtained. After completing the data collection, the Qualtrics platform
will closed and displayed language thanking the participants for their interest the survey
was closed. Upon completing data collection, the data were exported/downloaded from
Qualtrics into a Statistical Package for Social Science™ data analysis software and a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The automation feature encrypted the data using numerical
information, if any. However, this questionnaire neither required nor collected any
The collected data were saved in a password protected, external hard drive, and
stored in a locked, fireproof safe. After completing the analyses, any hard copy,
electronic and digital data, and supporting information (surveys) remain stored and will
139
be destroyed appropriately after the three years allotted by deleting and shredding study
data and information (Ozgur et al., 2015). The record-keeping process coincides with the
Data Analysis
Upon termination of the data collection phase, data were downloaded from
Qualtrics and used with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences™ (SPSS) data
analysis software. Descriptive statistics were conducted on the demographic survey data
results, where means and standard deviations were used to describe continuous variables,
such as age and number of years in the workforce. Frequencies and percentages were
regression analyses were then be conducted to examine relationships between the co-
Summary
correlational design was justified as appropriate for Lapinski and Orbe's (2007) Co-
predictors in three multiple regression models. Orbe's (1995, 1996) preferred outcomes
communication orientations and Spector's (1997) Job Satisfaction Survey total score as a
140
criterion of disengagement, dissatisfaction, and conflict, were all organizational
behaviors. Using the correlational research design was appropriate for investigating
relationships between the variables, if any, existed. Chapter 3 also included discussion on
the research participants, recruitment of the samples via Qualtrics (convenience sampling
method), steps for obtaining informed consent and confidentiality (privacy and protection
of the study participants), the geographic location, instrumentation with the validity and
reliability of the tools, and data collection and analyses (Denissen et al., 2010).
In Chapter 4, the study results are presented with discussion on data gathering.
The researcher examined the descriptive statistics and provided appropriate charts, plots,
and tables necessary in explaining the research findings. The researcher expounds on the
data analysis procedures and the study results of three multiple regression analyses.
Finally, the researcher reports the research results, answers the research questions and
141
Chapter 4
Chapter 4 contains the research report of the study results, answers the research
questions and hypotheses, and discusses the data analyses findings. The researcher used a
determine if any relationship existed between independent and dependent variables. The
Workplace. The study involved three research questions and three sets of four
hypotheses. This Chapter 4 presentation contains the data collection and analysis used in
Research Questions
United States instead of global or virtual organizations abroad. The three research
RQ2: How does communication approach relate to job dissatisfaction for non-
142
Research Hypotheses
The factors derived from the co-cultural theory communication approach and
preferred outcomes and the Job Satisfaction Survey tools were used to test the null
hypotheses of three sets of statistical hypotheses. The null hypotheses were either
variables and explained the dependent variables, focused on the relationships of interest
and whether statistical support was evident. Hence the three sets of hypotheses used for
Hypotheses - Disengagement
143
Hypotheses - Dissatisfaction
Hypotheses - Conflict
144
H6a: A statistically significant relationship existed between the use of
Data Collection
Data collected for this quantitative study occurred through an online survey
satisfaction, and conflict. The study samples in the American Workplace included Black
Using the Qualtrics survey software and consulting with a Qualtrics project
addition to addressing the intricacies of the data collection process, this section contains
details about the waiver of participants’ wet signatures on the informed consent
two choices, either “Accepted” or “Declined” participation in the study. Accepted meant
terms of the informed consent. Using a “skip logic” function meant the Qualtrics program
would advance a volunteer participant to the Navigation Instruction page, then to Block
145
“Decline,” the “skip logic” function exited an individual from the study online platform
Although a full-launch data collection process occurred in a single phase over six
days, Qualtrics employed a soft launch allowing the researcher to review and confirm that
the survey was functioning as intended or make any adjustment if needed. Absent any
distribute the survey for recruitment as planned and agreed. Qualtrics’ first and only full
launch successfully yielded more than enough samples for a rigorous study.
Demographics
Black-American, and mixed-race females, providing that at least one ethnicity was
no upward limit. The study participants were either working or had worked in an
represented by = 209 met these criteria and were included in the analysis. The sample
included participants from 30 different United States and territories, with Texas (n = 12,
10.0%), Alabama (n = 10, 8.3%), and North Carolina (n = 10, 8.3%) being the most
1. Participants were most commonly in the 21-31 age range (n = 50, 41.7%), and the
most commonly reported being at their job for 1 to 5 years (n = 56, 46.7%), and the
146
Table 1
Education
Did not complete high school 5 4.2
High school graduate or GED 28 23.3
Some college or technical school 31 25.8
College graduate 34 28.3
Some graduate or professional level 11 9.2
Graduate or professional degree 10 8.3
Missing or N/A 1 0.8
Tenure at job
Less than one year 15 12.5
1 - 5 years 56 46.7
6 - 10 years 26 21.7
11 - 15 years 6 5.0
More than 15 years 17 14.2
Workplace size
Small (employed 1 to 50 individuals) 50 41.7
Medium (employed 51 to 99 individuals) 28 23.3
Large (employed 100 or more individuals) 42 35.0
Data Analysis
First, composite scores were computed for the subscales of the Communication
Questionnaire and the Job Satisfaction Survey used in this study. Specifically, the
disengagement), and separation (used to measure conflict) were used from the
147
Communication Questionnaire, and the total job satisfaction score (used to measure
dissatisfaction) was used from the Job Satisfaction Survey. Composite scores for the
corresponding items. The total score of the Job Satisfaction Survey was computed by
summing the responses to all 36 items. Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for the
Table 2
computed for the study variables. Table 3 displays the Correlation Matrix and Cronbach’s
Alpha Coefficients for Study Variables. Assertiveness and non-assertiveness were both
alpha coefficients for the study variables ranged from .67 to .92.
148
Table 3
Notes. Bolded values on diagonal are Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
regressions were performed. For each regression, the independent variables were the
scores for the assertive and non-assertive subscales. For Research Question 1, the
Question 2, the dependent variable was the total job satisfaction score (dissatisfaction).
For Research Question 3, the dependent variable was separation subscale (conflict).
creating normal P-P plots of the regression residuals. Homoscedasticity was tested by
plotting standardized residuals against predicted values, and Multicollinearity was tested
Results
Effectively reporting study results is essential. The quantitative data are included
in the analyses tables and figures presenting the study analyses and results. The results
section contains a sub-section for each of the three research questions (RQ) and reiterates
149
the associated hypotheses (H). Also contained are discussions on the meaning of the
results in terms of support of or no support of the null hypotheses and which clearly
describe the meaning ascribed to those results. There were no missing data in the
analysis, the independent variables were the scores for the assertive and non-assertive
subscales, and the dependent variable was the assimilation subscale (disengagement). A
normal P-P plot of the regression residuals in Figure 4 showed no marked deviations
from the diagonal, indicating that normality was met. A scatterplot of residuals and
150
predicted values in Figure 5 showed that the data were approximately randomly
distributed around zero. The zero-distribution indicated that the data were homoscedastic.
Homoscedastic then describes whether the error term is constant or the same for all
values of the independent variables. The Variance inflation factors were all below 10,
which indicated that there was no severe multicollinearity among the variables. Outliers
were assessed based on standardized residual values greater than 3.00 in magnitude, with
Figure 4
Figure 5
(Assimilation)
151
The regression model predicting disengagement was significant, F(2, 117) =
12.68, R2 = .18, p < .001, indicating that the non-assertive communication strategy
results for the individual regression coefficients. The regression coefficient for assertive
communication was not significant (B = 0.19, p = .050), indicating that assertiveness was
not significantly related to disengagement; the null hypothesis (H10) was not rejected.
< .001), indicating that non-assertiveness was significantly related to disengagement; the
Table 4
95% CI
Variable B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Upper VIF
Assertive 0.19 0.10 0.17 1.98 .050 0.00 0.39 1.02
Non-assertive 0.40 0.09 0.36 4.27 < .001 0.21 0.58 1.02
152
RQ2: How does communication approach relate to job dissatisfaction for non-
analysis, the independent variables were the scores of the assertive and non-assertive
subscales, and the dependent variable was the total job satisfaction score (dissatisfaction).
A normal P-P plot of the regression residuals in Figure 6 showed deviation from the
diagonal, indicating that normality was not met. However, the F-test is robust toward
deviations from normality when the sample size is larger than 30 to 50 participants, so the
showed that the data were approximately randomly distributed around zero, indicating
153
that the data were homoscedastic. Variance inflation factors were all below 10, indicating
that there was no severe multicollinearity among variables. Outliers were assessed based
on standardized residual values greater than 3.00 in magnitude, with no outliers detected
Figure 6
Normal P-P Plot for Regression Predicting Dissatisfaction
154
Figure 7
Residuals Versus Predicted Values for Regression Predicting Dissatisfaction
The regression model predicting dissatisfaction was not significant, F(2, 117) =
displays the results for the individual regression coefficients. The regression coefficient
for assertive communication was not significant (B = 6.40, p = .073), indicating that
assertiveness was not significantly related to dissatisfaction; the null hypothesis (H30)
was not rejected. The regression coefficient for non-assertive communication was not
155
Table 5
95% CI
Variable B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Upper VIF
Assertive 6.40 3.53 0.17 1.81 .073 -0.60 13.40 1.02
Non-assertive -5.91 3.34 -0.16 -1.77 .080 -12.54 0.71 1.02
analysis, the independent variables were the scores for the assertive and non-assertive
subscales, and the dependent variable was the separation scale (conflict). A normal P-P
plot of the regression residuals in Figure 8 showed no marked deviations from the
156
diagonal, indicating that normality was met. A scatterplot of residuals and predicted
values in Figure 9 showed that the data were approximately randomly distributed around
zero, indicating the data were homoscedastic describing whether the error term is
constant or the same for all independent variables’ values. Variance inflation factors were
all below 10, indicating there was no severe multicollinearity among the variables.
Outliers were assessed based on standardized residual values greater than 3.00 in
magnitude with two outliers detected based on this criterion. The analysis was conducted
both with and without the outliers included to determine if the outliers impacted the
results. The outcome of the analysis did not change after removing the outliers, so the
Figure 8
157
Figure 9
Residuals Versus Predicted Values for Regression Predicting Conflict (Separation)
The regression model predicting conflict was significant, F(2, 117) = 26.57, R2 =
.31, p < .001, indicating that assertive and non-assertive communication strategies
explained a significant proportion of variance in conflict. Table 6 displays the results for
communication was significant (B = 0.37, p < .001), indicating that assertiveness was
significantly related to conflict; the null hypothesis (H50) was rejected. The regression
indicating that non-assertiveness was significantly related to conflict; the null hypothesis
158
Table 6
95% CI
Variable B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Upper VIF
Assertive 0.37 0.08 0.38 4.83 < .001 0.22 0.51 1.02
Non-assertive 0.33 0.07 0.36 4.65 < .001 0.19 0.47 1.02
Summary
This Chapter 4 contained the research report of the study results, answered the
research questions, and revealed if the null hypotheses were supported or rejected, and
discussed the findings of the data analyses. A series of multiple linear regression analyses
were conducted to answer the research questions. Of the three research questions and
three sets of hypotheses, three were significantly related and therefore rejected and three
were not significantly related and therefore rejected. No significant relationship was
found between assertiveness and disengagement, therefore H10 was not rejected. A
therefore H20 was rejected. No significant relationship was found between assertiveness
and dissatisfaction, therefore H30 was not rejected. No significant relationship was found
significant relationship was found between assertiveness and conflict, therefore, H50 was
therefore H60 was rejected. Chapter 5 contains sub-sections for the results of each set of
hypotheses, and each result is compared and contrasted with empirical literature.
159
Chapter 5
and employees (Garnero et al., 2014) can stem from unfamiliar communication strategies
based on cultural differences (Allison, 2004; Castle Bell et al., 2015; DeKay, 2012; Orbe,
1995; Parker, 2002; Shoss et al., 2013). Thus, the general problem was message
behavior, performance, and productivity (Ahmed et al., 2010; Allen, 2007; Mammen &
Sano, 2012; Mills, 2009; Shoss et al., 2013). The specific problem was that some
with managers who may not recognize or be familiar with co-cultural communicative
communication approaches (Camara & Orbe, 2010) and the constructs of organizational
behavior. Chapter 5 includes a summary of the findings, discussion of the findings, study
the constructs of organizational behavior, the researcher focused on two independent and
160
included disengagement, job satisfaction, and conflict. The research questions (RQ) with
RQ2: How does communication approach relate to job dissatisfaction for non-
161
dissatisfaction of non-dominant culture group females.
(1997) Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) were the two valid and reliable instruments used for
162
data collection. A series of multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to answer
the research questions. No significant relationship was found between assertiveness and
disengagement, so H10 was not rejected. A significant relationship was found between
relationship was found between assertiveness and dissatisfaction; H30 was not rejected.
therefore, H40 was not rejected. A significant relationship was found between
assertiveness and conflict, so H50 was rejected. A significant relationship was found
Discussion of Findings
This discussion of the findings contains sub-sections for the results of the three
research questions (RQ) and three sets of hypotheses with each set containing four
suggesting that when females of the non-dominant cultural group are not assertive, they
preferred outcome, separation, and may relate to dominant cultural group standards. The
dominant (Lapinski & Orbe, 2007) or non-dominant groups, as conflicting (Murugavel &
Somaraju, 2016; Osborne & Hamoud, 2017). Conflicting as used in this study
163
Determining the desired outcome depends mainly on a non-dominant cultural group
distance between the non-dominant culture group members and the dominant culture
groups (Orbe & Roberts, 2012). Consequently, some females in the non-dominant culture
dominant culture group member avoids engaging and interacting in the leader-member
exchange (Allen, 2007). The non-dominant culture groups are perceived as “muted,”
which affect communicative interactions with members of dominant society (Orbe, 1996
knowingly or unknowingly (Murugavel & Somaraju, 2016; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017;
culture group females. However, Bray and Williams (2017) used Downs and Hazen’s
1977 Communication Satisfaction Instrument and Meyer and Allen’s 1990 Commitment
Instrument, to conduct two quantitative studies. Bray and Williams’ (2017) quantitative
correlational study with regression analysis revealed a link between employees’ citizenry
the communication processes. For example, the gap occurs based on employees’
164
expectations of an organization passing or sharing of information and messages
compared to the actual communication exchange and climate. Bray and Williams (2017)
also posited that employees experiencing positive communication in the workplace would
more likely than not demonstrate significant commitment levels. The significant
commitment levels linked citizenry behavior and job satisfaction. Like Osborne and
Hammoud (2017), Scott (2013) proclaimed job satisfaction and reduced workplace
conflict. The finding for RQ3 indicated that conflict existed in the non-dominant culture
Because regression analysis does not provide causality (Paul & Cozby, 2012; Rusagara &
Sreedhara, 2017), one may speculate that something other than communication strategies
group members still lead and influence the American workforce, thereby establishing the
Cubbage, 2018; Odine, 2015; Razzante & Orbe, 2018; Redd et al., 2011; Shuler et al.,
2016). As leaders, the dominant culture group members’ influence on the organizational
culture, could occur knowingly or unknowingly (Odine, 2015; Razzante, 2018b; Richard
165
DeKay (2012) conducted a study on communication strategies that lend to
conflict reduction and problem resolution. DeKay (2018) found that effective verbal
resolution. Root (2018) denounced favoring any co-cultural communication strategy over
another as the most effective communication approach, especially if the favorable support
is based on the preferred outcome (e.g., assimilate or separate). Additionally, Root (2018)
provided rationales and scenarios for teaching, assessing, and fostering familiarity with
Congdon, 2014; Goldman & Myers, 2015). Seemingly, the non-dominant culture group
members' situational communicative stance was based on the quality and perception of
contingent on any one of three desired outcomes (Kramarae, 2005; Richard et al., 2013;
requires assimilating with or separating from the dominant culture group (Orbe, 1998a;
Root, 2018). White and Ali-Kahn's (2013) research revealed no formal education or
adaptability, such as identity negotiation and navigation through an organization (Nuru &
166
Arendt, 2019; Orbe, 2014; Razzante, 2018a, 2018b). Previous research seldom supported
that academic curriculum existed in colleges and universities on either selecting for use
2012; Orbe, 1998a, 1998b; Scott et al., 2013; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019).
Limitations
There were unforeseen research limitations while conducting the study, which
were outside the researcher's control, and which could have affected the study results and
generalization of the study findings (Orbe, 1995). However, the researcher mitigated
most limitations discussed in this section. In addition to the civil unrest during the United
States’ Presidential election of (2020), coupled with the COVID-19 virus and the Delta
and Omicron variants in 2020 and 2021, other less concerting constraints or limitations
existed as follow.
mandates made random recruiting of research participants difficult. The nation's shelter-
in-place mandate required all but essential businesses and activities to cease and close
temporarily. Mandatory mask-wearing for safety and protection made hardcopy survey
the participants' recruitment process (for less than seven non-consecutive days) to
mitigate the participants' recruitment limitation. The short recruitment period yielded
more than the 89 respondents needed for a rigorous study. Alternatively, the vendor
167
grossed N = 209 surveys or 43% more respondents than required. However, 89
respondents had no work experience from 2015 through 2021, thereby yielding the 120
completed surveys analyzed. Consequently, the researcher had no control over the
communication practices (Castle Bell et al., 2015; Zirulnik & Orbe, 2019). Analysis of 28
communication strategies was much too large. Therefore, the study focused on two
survey could have been somewhat limited based on some respondents' inability or
unwillingness to disclose information transparently and honestly about their cultural and
not revealing their actual communication practices, which is known as social desirability
bias (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Keyton et al., 2013). Respondents may have also
unknowingly used some form of the co-cultural communication approach while lacking
familiarity with such practice (Root, 2018). Subconsciously using any of the co-cultural
probably not an uncommon instance (Camara & Orbe, 2010; Keyton et al., 2013).
have been generalizable because the co-cultural communication theory links to other
168
theory, critical race theory, and standpoint theory (Allen, 2007; Hendrix & Wilson, 2014;
Kramarae, 2005; Liggett, 2014; Murugavel & Somaraju, 2016; Orbe, 1998b; Rocco et al.,
2014; Rudick & Golsan, 2016). The present study focused only on two co-cultural
Based on the research findings for research questions (RQ) 1 and 3, some
theory-building process” (p. 3). The current study emphasized co-cultural communication
psychology. This quantitative study added to the body of knowledge that has been
modeled mostly through qualitative research methods and designs. Examining the co-
169
As demonstrated in this study, a need for increased awareness of co-cultural
psychologists and practitioners should arise to the cause of helping organizations meet
this trending need. Through training and development of the co-cultural communication
example, leaders and practitioners are empowered and accountable as the first-line
organization. Leaders and practitioners should encourage diversity, equity, and inclusion
include state and community colleges and universities (Historically Black Colleges and
Universities). Most United States federal and state government organizations are
Root (2018) provided rationales and scenarios for teaching, assessing, and
Root (2018) developed academic activities and concise instructions on the practical
170
application of co-cultural communication theory. Root (2018) sought to raise awareness
of the co-cultural communication theory among college students. Root (2018) wanted to
between marginalized and dominant group identities" (p. 13). Root (2018) also provided
proposed questions to guide professors in debriefing students who participated in the in-
class scenarios to learn if the students understood the co-cultural communication theory
from personal experiences. In 2020, Tang et al. conducted a study whereby the co-
additional research is needed using the quantitative and mixed methods because much of
the seminal research was conducted using various qualitative methods, such as
qualitative research methods can help obtain in-depth information on communication and
assertiveness linked to conflict. Future studies could include aggressiveness as the third
171
the remaining co-cultural communication orientations like those depicted in Table A2,
Perhaps additional research and more information can provide better understanding of the
It would also be helpful to conduct more research on modifying and adapting the
theory in diverse and situational contexts. As an influx of more diverse individuals and
Expanding co-cultural communication theory through future research could benefit the
literature is not yet overly saturated with the co-cultural communication theory (Camara
& Orbe, 2010; Lapinski & Orbe, 2007; Orbe & Harris, 2015; Orbe & Price, 2015;
the field of industrial and organizational psychology. Cultural diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DEI) continue increasing in the American workplace. The DEI phenomenon
leader-member exchange and interactions with subordinate employees. The industrial and
172
As shown in this study, workplace communication, message confusion,
interactions occur between people of diverse cultures in the workplace. Thus, the
adaptation of the co-cultural communication practices to align with research in the field
Summary
The three research questions (RQ) and four sets of the hypotheses for each
question revealed three significant relationships where the null hypotheses were rejected
and three with no significant relationships where the null hypotheses failed to reject.
the United States workplace. An influx of individuals with varying cultures and
ethnicities assimilates into the United States and the American workplace alongside the
dominant culture group leaders. An innumerable number of foreign refuges enter the
United States annually and seek employment within the American economy.
In the United States, organizations are mandated to implement Diversity, Equity, and
173
employees’ performance organizations’ bottom line and resources (e.g., people, money,
and time). An infinite number of conflicts in the American workplace occur where
message confusion. While this quantitative correlational study could not address
causality, this study revealed significant relationships found between assertive and non-
174
References
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2015.978702
Ahmed, Z., Shields, F., White, R., & Wilbert, J. (2010). Managerial communication: The
https://www.abacademies.org
Algina, J., & Olejnik, S. (2010). Sample size tables for correlation analysis with
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3803_02
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400490461396
https://www.apa.org
175
Anfara, V. (2008). Theoretical frameworks. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n453
https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2019.1574211
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2012.02.001
Astrauskaite, M., Vaitkevicius, R., & Perminas. (2011). Job satisfaction survey: A
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n5p41
0017.
176
Barkman, L. LS. (2018). Muted group theory: A tool for hearing marginalized voices.
papers/
Beebe, S. A., & Biggers, T. (1986). The status of the introductory intercultural
10.1080/03634528609388319
Bell, R. L., & Muir, C. (2014). A review of business communication under the leadership
https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/
United States. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(5), 487-
502. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1354757
Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question of
https://doi.org/10.2307/590553
177
Buzzanell, P. M. (1999). Tensions and burdens in employment interviewing processes:
Callahan, J. L. (2014). Writing literature reviews: A reprise and update. Human Resource
https://doi.org/10.1080/17513051003611602
Castaneda, M. E., Bateh, J., & Heyliger, W. (2013). Areas of cross-cultural difference in
https://clutejournals.com
Castle Bell, G. C., Hopson, M. C., Weathers, M. R., & Ross, K. A. (2015). From “laying
178
Clark, H. H. (2016). Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review,
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Association for Psychological Science, 1(3),
98-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783
Cohen, M., & Avanzino, S. (2010). We are people first: Framing organizational
https://doi.org/10.1080/10510971003791203
Coleman Selden, S., & Selden, F. (2001). Rethinking diversity in public organizations for
the 21st century: Moving toward a multicultural model. Administration & Society,
Congdon, M., Jr. (2014). What’s wrong with me?: An autoethnographic investigation of
Cozby, P. C. & Bates, S. (2012). Methods in behavioral research. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-
https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059
Crouse Quinn, S. C., Garza, M. A., Butler, J., Fryer, C. S., Casper, E. T., Thomas, S. B.,
Barnard, D., & Kim, K. H. (2012). Improving informed consent with minority
179
participants: Results from researcher and community surveys. Journal of
https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.44
Cubbage, J. (2018). Shop talk: Talking shop about creating safe spaces in the HBCU
https://doi.org/10.13128/formare-22635
Companies.
communication and the politics of everyday life. State University of New York
Press. https://sunypress.edu/
Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. Jablin, & L. Putnam (Eds.). The New
https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912458966
Deluliis, D., & Flinko, S. (2016). Professional civility and problematic relationships in
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/
Denissen, J., Neumann, L., & van Zalk, M. (2010). How the Internet is changing the
implementation of traditional research methods, people's daily lives, and the way
180
Behavioral Development, 34(6), 564-575.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410383746
Downey, S. N., van der Werff, L., Thomas, K. M., & Plaut, V. C. (2015). The role of
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12273
https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369303000305
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T.t., Gonzalez-
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020858
Ellis, T. J., & Levy, Y. (2009). Towards a guide for novice researchers on research
Emerson, K. T. U., & Murphy, M. C. (2014). Identity threat at work: How social identity
threat and situational cues contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035403
181
Fassinger, R., & Morrow, S. L. (2013). Toward best practices in quantitative, qualitative,
Ferdman, B. M., & Sagiv, L. (2012). Diversity in organizations and cross-cultural work
Forrest-Bank, S., Jenson, J. M., & Trecartin, S. (2015). The revised 28-item racial and
Fragale, A. R., Sumanth, J. J., Tiendens, L. Z., & Northcraft, G. B. (2012). Appeasing
Framing research. (2007). In M. Fox, P. Martin, & G. Green (Eds.), Doing practitioner
Garnero, A., Kampelmann, S., & Rycx, F. (2014). The heterogeneous effects of
430-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12064
182
Gates, D. (2003). Learning to play the game: An exploratory study of how African
American women and men interact with others in the organizations. The
Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., Keller, K. M., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2012). Conflict
1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029993
Gillet, N., Becker, C., Lafreniere, M-A., Huart, I., & Fouquereau, E. (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1037/.mil0000179
https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2014-0370
Gkorezis, P., Bellou, V., & Skemperis, N. (2015). Nonverbal communication and
1022. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2014-0630
https://doi.org/10.1080/10646179009359719
183
dissent. Communication Reports, 28(1), 24-35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2014.902488
Groscurth, C. R., & Orbe, M. P. (2006). The oppositional nature of civil rights discourse:
Groysberg, B., & Slind, M. (2012). The silent killer of big companies. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org
https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2017.1367026
Hays-Thomas, R., & Bendick, M., Jr. (2013). Professionalizing diversity and inclusion
practice: Should voluntary standards be the chicken or the egg? Industrial and
Hayward High School. (2020). Student employment current job openings. https://hhs-
haywardusd-ca.schoolloop.com/
Heim, D., Hunter, S. C., & Jones, R. (2011). Perceived discrimination, identification,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110383310
184
Hendrix, K. G., &Wilson, C. (2014). Virtual invisibility: Race and communication
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.934852
https://doi.org/10.1177/001083677801300201
https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2012.722822
1609-1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.09.007
112. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2018.1511748
Jerome, N. (2013). Application of the Maslow’s hierarchy of need theory; impacts and
39-45. www.ijbmi.org
Jiang, H., & Men, R. L. (2017). Creating an engaged workforce: The impact of authentic
185
Communication Research, 44(2), 225-243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215613137
Jones, K. P., Arena, D. F., Nittrouer, C. L. Alonso, N. M., & Lindsey, A. P. (2017).
Keyton, J., Caputo, J. M., Ford, E. A., Fu, R., Leibowitz, S. A., Liu, T., Polasik, S. S.,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612474990
Krapels, R. H., & Arnold, V.D. (1998). Response to Murphy’s “re-viewing business
https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500111
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2010.514037
Lapinski, M. K., & Orbe, M. P. (2007). Evidence for the construct validity and reliability
137-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450701399388
186
Lawter, L., Kopelman, R. E., & Prottas, D. J. (2015). McGregor’s theory X/Y and job
8594.2012.00155.x
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design. Prentice-
Hall/Merrill.
Liggett, T. (2014). The mapping of a framework: Critical race theory and TESOL. The
Light, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1990). By design: Planning research on higher
Liu, L. A., Chua, C. H., & Stahl, G. K. (2010). Quality of communication experience:
Luttrell, R. (2014). Diversity and inclusion in the 21st Century: Guidelines for managers.
Mammen, S., & Sano, Y. (2012). Gaining access to economically marginalized rural
187
Meares, M. M., Oetzel, J. G., Torres, A., Derkacs, D., & Ginossar, T. (2004). Employee
https://doi.org/10.1080/0090988042000178121
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied multivariate research design
Mills, C. W. (2009). Critical race theory: A reply to Mike Cole. Ethnicities, 9(2), 270-
281. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687968090090020502
Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J.,
https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-11-2016-0197
Morris, J. E., & Monroe, C. R. (2009). Why study the U.S. South? The nexus of race and
21-36. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08328876
Morrison, A. M., & von Glinow, M. A. (1990). Women and minorities in management.
066X.45.2.200
188
Murphy, M. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2010). A culture of genius: How an organization’s lay
theory shapes people’s cognition, affect, and behavior. Personality and Social
Murugavel, V., & Somaraju, A. (2016). Cultural differences on conflict strategies in the
https://www.internationaljournal.org
Newman, I., & Covrig, D. M. (2013). Building consistency between title, problem
statement, purpose, & research questions to improve the quality of research plans
and reports. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development,
Nuru, A. K., & Arendt, C. E. (2019). Not so safe a space: Women activists of color’s
https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2018.1505940
189
Oliha-Donaldson, H. (2018). Let’s talk: An exploration into student discourse about
https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2017.1327379
https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884|6687052
https://doi.org/233198188
https://doi.org/216296861
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00209.x
190
Orbe, M. P. (2004). Negotiating multiple identities within multiple frames: An analysis of
https://doi.org/10.10/03634520410001682401
https://www.womenandlanguage.org
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00209.x
Orbe, M. P. (2016b). The rhetoric of race, culture, and identity: Rachel Dolezal as co-
http://contemporaryrhetoric.com/archive/
Orbe, M. P., & Camara, S. K. (2010). Defining discrimination across cultural groups:
Orbe, M. P., & Harris, T. M. (2015). Interracial communication: Theory into practice
https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2012.722838
191
Osborne, S., & Hammoud, M. S. (2017). Effective employee engagement in the
50-67. https://doi.org/10.5590/IJAMT.2017.16.1.04
Ozgur, C., Kleckner, M. & Li, Y. (2015). Selection of statistical software for solving big
data problems: A guide for business, students, and universities. SAGE Open, 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015584379
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival Manual, A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2012.6.3.297
Perkins, P. S. (2008). The art and science of communication: Tools for effective
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S., B., Lee, J-Y, & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
192
Prematunga, R. K. (2012). Correlational analysis. Australian Critical Care, 25, 195-199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2012.02.003
http://interscience.in/imr.html
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/
Psychological Association
https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1472116
193
Razzante, R. J., & Orbe, M. P. (2018). Two sides of the same coin: Conceptualizing
Redd, T. C., Moyes, G. D., & Sun, J. (2011). African American accountants then and
mce.ac.id /
Reinsch, N. L., Jr., & Gardner, J. A. (2014). Do communication abilities affect promotion
decisions? Some data from the C-suite. Journal of Business and Technical
Reio, T. G. Jr. (2010). The threat of common method variance bias to theory building.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310380331
Reio, T. G. Jr., & Reio-Sanders, J. (2011). Thinking about workplace engagement: Does
Richard, O. C., Kirby, S. L., & Chadwick, K. (2013). The impact of racial and gender
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.744335
Francis.
194
Rocco, T. S., Bernier, J. D., & Bowman, L. (2014). Critical race theory and HRD:
Moving race front and center. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(4),
457-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314544294
Rogers, D. P. (1993, March 1). [Review of the book Democracy in an age of corporate
https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069301400418
https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2017.1372617
Rozas, L. W., & Klein, W. C. (2010). The value and purpose of the traditional qualitative
https://doi.org/10.1080/15433710903344116
Rudick, C. K., & Golsan, K. B. (2016). Difference, accountability, and social justice:
Rudick, C. K., Sollitto, M., Claus, C. J., Sanford, A. A., Nainby, K., & Golsan, K. B.
195
Rusagara, J. B., & Sreedhara, T. N. (2017). An assessment of employees’ motivation and
http://www.publishingindia.com/johb/
https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/
Sanford, A. A., Rudick, C. K., Nainby, K., Golsan, K. B., Rodriguez, S. R., & Claus, C.
J. (2019). “’I Was Gonna Go Off, but My Best Friend is White.”: Hispanic
https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2013.831005
https://jme.bmj.com/content/28/3/143
Sherbin, L., & Rashid, R. (2017). Diversity doesn’t stick without inclusion. Howard
196
Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H., & Singh, G. (2011),
‘Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research.’
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
Shoss, M., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming the
Shuler, H. S., Faulk, K., Hidleburg-Johnson, B., & Williams, D. (2016). Engaging
https://www.cscjournals.org/journals/IJBRM/
Shuter, R., & Turner, L. H. (1997). African American and European American women in
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318997111004
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-009-9159-3
197
Society of industrial and organizational psychology. (2015). Science for a smarter
Solorzano, D. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial
Sorenson, J., Ewles, G., Sasso, T. (2015). What do you hope to contribute to society?
Publications/TIP/TIP-Back-Issues
693-713. https://www.proquest.com/openview/
https://www.siop.org/Research-Publications/TIP/TIP-Back-Issues
Stephens, N., Fryberg, S., & Markus, H. (2011). When choice does not equal freedom: A
198
Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 33-41. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1948550610378757
Stevens, J. P., & Pituch, K. A. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social
sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM's SPSS (6th ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/ 10:1002/job.523
Suh, T., & Lee, J. (2016). Internal audience segmentation and diversity in internal
www.ijmrr.com
Tang, L., Meadows, C., & Li, H. (2020). How gay men’s wives in China practice co-
https://doi.org./10.1080/17513057.2019.1569252
199
Taran, S. (2011). An examination of the factors contributing to poor communication
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318903259402
Timmins, F., & McCabe, C. (2005). How to conduct an effective literature research.
https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2005.11.20.11.41.c4010
http://www.pearsonhighered.com
Trotter, A. R., Matt, S. B., & Wojnar, D. (2013). Communication strategies and
accommodations utilized by health care providers with hearing loss: A pilot study.
10.1044/1059-0889(2013/12-0065
2018. Business Insights: Global. Web 24 Oct. 2020. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll
Trump, D. (2018b). President Donald Trump delivers remarks at a make America great
200
Business Insights: Global. Web 24 Oct. 2020. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc.
http://www.rollcall.com/about/
Turner, L. H., & Shuter, R. (2004) African American and European American women's
Udovičić, M., Baždarić, B., Bilić-Zulle, L., & Petrovečki. M. (2007). What we need to
10-15. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2007.002
Van Saane, N., Sluiter, J. K., Verbeek, J. H., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. (2003). Reliability
https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqg038
Visagie, J. C., Linde, H., & Havenga, W. (2011). Leadership competencies for managing
225-247. https://repository.nwu.ac.za
Visagie, J. C., Linde, H., & Havenga, W. (2017). A theoretical approach to the
201
Wassenaar, D. (2013). Robert A. Amdur & Elizabeth A. Bankert (Eds.), Institutional
93-94. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.4.93
White, J. W., & Ali-Khan, C. (2013). The role of academic discourse in minority
https://doi.org/1462773570
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878111414486
Wing Sue, D. (2010). Microaggressions: More than just race. Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com
Worthen, H. (2008). Using activity theory to understand how people learn to negotiate
https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030802391385
Yin, R. (2006). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied social research
Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Denschop, Y., & Nkomo, S. (2010). Unpacking diversity,
Zirulnik, M. L., & Orbe, M. (2019). Black female pilot communicative experiences:
202
Appendix A: Tables A1–A4 and Sections 1-3 CCC Resources
203
Table A1: CCC Practices and Orientations Summary (26 Items)
1 Nonassertive assimilation
2 Assertive assimilation
204
both parties agree to ignore co-cultural
differences
3 Aggressive assimilation
4 Nonassertive accommodation
205
5 Assertive accommodation
6 Aggressive accommodation
7 Nonassertive separation
206
Maintaining barriers Imposing, through the use of verbal
and nonverbal cues, a psychological
distance from dominant group
members
8 Assertive separation
"Notes: These communicative practices are examples of tactics enacted to promote each
interpersonal, or organizational factors, one tactic, (e.g., communicating self) can be used
innovatively to promote more than one communication orientation" (Orbe & Roberts,
2012, p. 296).
207
Table A2: CCC Strategies--Approaches--Preferred Outcomes (35 Items)
Aggressive
Nonassertive Assimilation Assertive Assimilation
Assimilation
Averting controversy Extensive Preparation Dissociating
***Journaling
Nonassertive Assertive Aggressive
Accommodation Accommodation Accommodation
Increasing visibility Communicating self Confronting
Dispelling stereotypes Intragroup Networking Gaining advantage
Utilizing liaisons ***Speaking out
Educating others
**Reporting incident to
authorities
Aggressive
Nonassertive Separation Assertive Separation
Separation
Avoiding Exemplifying Strength Attacking
208
Table A3: CCC Orientations (28 Items)
Averting Controversy
Assertive
Extensive Preparation
Communicating Self
Communicating Self
Overcompensating
Intragroup Networking
Intragroup Networking
Manipulating
Exemplifying
Utilizing Liaisons
Strengths
Stereotypes
Educating Others
Embracing Stereotypes
Bargaining
Aggressive
Dissociating
Confronting Mirroring
Attacking Sabotaging
Others
Gaining Advantage Strategic Distancing
Ridiculing Self
209
Table A4: CCC Strategies--Approaches--Preferred Outcomes
(11 items)
***Isolation
Note. Table A4 represents those new Co-Cultural Communication Approaches and
Preferred Outcomes not originally conceptualized by Orbe but were discussed by the
*Camara (2002)
***Gates (2003)
210
Appendix B: Online Informed Consent
questions so your forms will be included in the outcome. None of your personal
information is required. Your answers are private and will help with increasing
awareness about talking among people from different cultures. For example, in
America Black women work and talk with White men at work. There are three sets
of questions.
If you agree to do this survey, please select “Accept” giving your Consent.
You are saying that you are 18 or older. You can stop at any time. You can contact
Decline
211
Appendix B1: Section 1 Study Demographics--Manual Version
2. What is your highest level of education (please select only one choice)?
Did not Complete High School
High School Graduate or GED
Some College or Technical School
College graduate (2 to 4-year degree)
Some graduate or Professional Level
Graduate or Professional Degree
a. ___________________________ b. ____________________________________
Degree or Vocational School Field of Degree or Vocational Trade
Example: Master’s or Certificate Example: Nursing or Electrician
If needed: You may write a statement to ensure your level of education is accounted
___________________________________________________________________
3. Were you in the workforce at any time in years 2015 through 2020? ( ) Yes or ( ) No
a. If yes, list your job title for 2020. _____________________________
b. If no, list your last job title
______________________________________________________
c. Insert the two-letter abbreviation of the state in which the workplace is located
(Example: CA as California) _______.
d. Would you estimate the size of the workforce at your job under discussion?
( ) Small 1-99 individuals ( ) Medium 51-99 individuals ( ) Large 100 or more
individuals
4. How long have you been employed at the workplace under review?
( ) One Year or Less ( ) 1 to 5 Years ( ) 5 to 10 Years
( ) 10 Years to 21 Years ( ) 21 Years or more
6. Do you identify as? ( ) Female ( ) Prefer not to answer ( ) Other (please specify) ________
Research Participants.
212
Appendix B1: Section 2 CCC Questionnaire--Manual Version
The following questions ask you to think about your general communication patterns and
what you might typically do or not do when you are/were in a situation as the only
minority group member. In other words, you were the only person of your race or
ethnicity in a work group.
Using the scale provided below in which 1=Never and 5=Always. Please circle the
number that best represents your behavior how you usually communicate with others
when you are a minority within a group.
3. When I talk to people in the majority, I try to minimize the differences between us.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
8. When I talk to people in a majority group my goal is to make it clear that I am like
them.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
213
10. It is important for me that members of the majority culture see me as similar to them.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
12. I think it is important that members of the majority culture learn to play by my rules.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
13. Members of the majority culture should appreciate the unique aspects of the minority
culture.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
14. There are many aspects of my cultural background that the majority culture should
embrace.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
15. When I interact with members of the majority culture it is my goal to get them to see
things the way I do.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
16. I try to emphasize my own culture when interacting with members of the majority
culture.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
17. I don’t want to “fit in” with members of the majority culture.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
18. I do what I can to emphasize the differences between my culture and the majority
culture.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
214
20. I usually try to be non-confrontational when dealing with members of the majority
culture.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
21. I typically don’t assert myself when communicating with members of the majority
group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
22. When dealing with members of the majority culture, I don’t express myself as I
would with other people.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
23. I sometimes feel inhibited when I interact with members of the majority group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
24. I usually ignore my own needs when I interact with members of the majority.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
25. It is important to me that I assert myself when talking with members of the majority
culture.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
26. If I am talking with members of the majority culture, I always try to make sure my
ideas are heard.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
27. I make my opinions clear when I interact with member of the majority culture.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
28. Asserting myself is important when I am talking with members of the majority.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
29. It is important that I confront members of the majority culture with my ideas.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
215
30. I often find myself being overly expressive when I communicate with member
of the majority culture.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
31. I always promote my goals when talking with members of the majority culture.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
34. I don’t care whether or not I “fit in” with the majority group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
1 2 3 4 5
Notes. “There is no cost, please cite the Lapinski & Orbe (2007) paper.” “Items 1-34 are
the co-cultural theory scales –items listed in Lapinski & Orbe’s (2007) publication; other
items are scales we used in the validation study.” (M. Lapinski, personal communication,
January 6, 2020).
Scales Scoring:
Items: 30-34 =
216
Appendix B1: Section 3 JSS Survey--Manual Version
Disagree moderately
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH
Agree moderately
Agree very much
Disagree slightly
QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO
Agree slightly
REFLECTING YOUR OPINION
ABOUT IT.
11. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being 1 2 3 4 5 6
promoted.
12. My supervisor is unfair to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6
217
JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY
Paul E. Spector
Department of Psychology
University of South Florida
Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, All rights reserved.
Disagree moderately
PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH
Agree moderately
Agree very much
Disagree slightly
QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO
Agree slightly
REFLECTING YOUR OPINION
ABOUT IT.
23. There are few rewards for those who work here. 1 2 3 4 5 6
26. I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the 1 2 3 4 5 6
organization.
27. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6
32. I don't feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. 1 2 3 4 5 6
218
Appendix B2: Section 1 Demographics--Automated Version
1. Demographic Questions
Black-American
African-American
Bi-racial (with at least one ethnicity being Black-American or
African-American)
Mixed (three or more races with at least one ethnicity being Black-
American or African-American)
Prefer not to answer
Other (please specify)
219
* 4. What is your highest level of education (please select only one choice)?
Did not complete High School
High School Graduate or GED
Some College or Technical School
College Graduate ( 2 to 4-year degree)
Some Graduate or Professional Level
Graduate or Professional Degree
Insert the field of your degree? Example: Business Administration
* 5. Were you in the workforce at any time in the years 2015 through 2020?
Yes. If yes, list your job title for 2020
No. If no, list your last job title
List Job Title in 2020 or List the Last Job Title.
6. In what state or U.S. territory did you work on the job of discussion?
10-21 Years
21 Years or More
220
Appendix B2: Section 2 CCC Questionnaire—Automated Version
The following questions ask you to think about your general communication patterns and what
you might typically do or not do when you are in a situation (or were in a situation) as the only
minority group member. In other words, you were the only person of your race or ethnicity in a
work group.
Using the scales provided in the following pages, which 1=Never and 5=Always, please select
the number that best represents your behavior how you usually communicate with others when
you are a minority within a group.
221
* 5. I tend to believe that I am very similar to members of the majority.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
* 9. It is
important for me that members of the majority culture see me as similar
to them.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
* 11. I think it is important that members of the majority culture learn to play by
my rules.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
222
* 12. Members of the majority group should appreciate the unique aspects of a
minority group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
* 13. There are many aspects of my background that the majority group should
embrace.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
* 14.
When I interact with members of the majority group, it is my goal to get
them to see things the way I do.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
* 15. I try to emphasize my own culture when interacting with members of the
majority culture.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
* 16. I don't want to "fit in" with members of the majority group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
* 17. I do what
I can to emphasize the differences between my group and the
majority group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
223
* 19. I usually tryto be non-confrontational when dealing with members of the
majority group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
20. When in the minority, I typically don't assert myself when communicating
with members of the majority group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
* 21. When dealing with members of the majority group, I don't express myself as
I would with other people.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
* 23. I usually put the needs of the majority group ahead of my own needs.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
* 24. It isimportant to me that I assert myself when talking with members of the
majority group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
* 25. If I am talking with members of the majority group, I always try to make
sure my ideas are heard.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
224
* 26. I make my opinions clear when I interact with members of the majority
group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
27. Asserting myself is important when I am talking with members of the majority.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
28. It is important that I confront members of the majority group when needed.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
29. I often find myself being overly expressive when I communicate with
members of the majority group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
30. I always promote my goals when talking with members of the majority group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
33. I don't care whether or not I "fit in" with the majority group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
225
34. I often separate myself from the majority group.
Never Rarely Neutral Sometimes Always
Note. “There is no cost, please cite the Lapinski & Orbe (2007) paper.” “Items 1-34 are
the co-cultural theory scales –items listed in Lapinski & Orbe’s (2007) publication; other
items are scales we used in the validation study.” (M. Lapinski, personal communication,
January 6, 2020).
226
Appendix B2: Section 3 JSS--Automated Version
Please select the one item for each question that comes closest to reflecting your opinion about it.
*
* 2. There is really too little chance for promotion on my job.
Disagree Very Much Disagree Moderately Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Very Much
5. When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive.
Disagree Very Much Disagree Moderately Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Very Much
* 6. Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult.
Disagree Very Much Disagree Moderately Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Very Much
227
* 8. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless.
Disagree Very Much Disagree Moderately Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Very Much
* 11. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted.
Disagree Very Much Disagree Moderately Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Very Much
* 13. The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer.
Disagree Very Much Disagree Moderately Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Very Much
228
16. I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work
with.
Disagree Very Much Disagree Moderately Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Very Much
* 19. I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me.
Disagree Very Much Disagree Moderately Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Very Much
* 23. There are few rewards for those who work here.
Disagree Very Much Disagree Moderately Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Very Much
229
* 24. I have too much to do at work.
Disagree Very Much Disagree Moderately Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Very Much
* 26. I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization.
Disagree Very Much Disagree Moderately Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Very Much
230
* 32. I don't feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be.
Disagree Very Much Disagree Moderately Disagree Slightly Agree Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Very Much
231
Appendix C: Preliminary Assessment Selection Criteria
1. Demographic Questions
Black-American
African-American
Bi-racial (with at least one ethnicity being Black-American or
African-American)
Mixed (three or more races with at least one ethnicity being Black-
American or African-American)
Prefer not to answer
Other (please specify)
232
* 4. What is your highest level of education (please select only one choice)?
Did not complete High School
High School Graduate or GED
Some College or Technical School
College Graduate ( 2 to 4-year degree)
Some Graduate or Professional Level
Graduate or Professional Degree
Insert the field of your degree? Example: Business Administration
* 5. Were you in the workforce at any time in the years 2015 through 2020?
Yes. If yes, list your job title for 2020
No. If no, list your last job title
List Job Title in 2020 or List the Last Job Title.
6. In what state or U.S. territory did you work on the job of discussion?
10-21 Years
21 Years or More
233
Appendix D: Quality Review of Literature -- Criteria Inclusion & Exclusion
234
Appendix E: Informed Consent
Greetings,
managers) in ways that can help lead to achieving preferred outcomes (such as
to determine if any relationship exist between the way workers and leaders
communicate with each other and the workers’ feelings of: (a) commitment to the
job, (b) satisfaction with the work, and (c) disagreement or conflict with how the
Your participation will involve filling out a questionnaire. The study data
collection will run for 16 days. The questionnaire may take 10 minutes to
1
Participants from Mississippi must be minimum age 21 or Alabama and Nebraska must be minimum age
of 19.
235
needed to conduct the study, the study may be terminated without consent of a
participant.
You can decide to be a part of this study or not. Once you start, you can
withdraw from the study at any time without any repercussions. The results of the
research study may be published but your identity will remain confidential, and
your name will not be made known to any outside parties. In this research, there
are no foreseeable risks to you. Although there may be no direct benefit to you, a
possible benefit from your being part of this study is in helping raise
If you have any questions about the research study, please call 1-559-779-
may leave a voice mail or an email message. For questions about your rights as a
1. You may decide not to be part of this study. You may withdraw from the
of the research study and has answered all of your questions and
concerns.
236
3. Data will be kept secure on a pass word protected, USB drive and in a
be scanned onto the same password protected USB drive and hardcopy
collected. The USB will be retained for three (3) years and then destroyed
completion.
By signing this form, you agree that you understand the nature of the
study, the possible risks and benefits to you as a participant, and how your
identity will be kept confidential. When you sign this form, this means that
currently, you are 21 years old or older and that you give your permission to
(CHECK ONE)
237
Appendix F: Guidance – Online Surveys and IRB Review
Board’s (IRB) considerations for those researchers who are collecting data with
online surveys.
Internet Research, explains that the current federal human subjects research
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/mtgings/2013%20March%20Mtg/internet_resear
ch.pdf).
my online survey?
When collecting data with an online survey, typically the researcher and
the informed consent process with a signature. Although the federal regulations
means the researcher would not gather a signature from the subject during the
informed consent process. For more on the requirements for requesting a waiver
policy/guidance/faq/informed-consent/index.html.)
238
If a waiver of documentation of informed consent is granted, the
researcher can build the informed consent document into the first page of the
survey. In these cases, the consent document still includes all required elements
(see the GUIDANCE – Informed Consent document in the IRBNet Forms and
“agree” to participate, which takes the subject to the online survey, or “disagree”
to participate, which removes the individual from the study. The Qualtrics Project
Manager provides instructions for creating a consent form on the first page of the
survey (https://www.qualtrics.com)
in the IRBNet Forms and Templates library). Anonymous data are collected
has identifiers, but the data are managed to protect the privacy of the individuals.
personal identifier associated with the informed consent process in the raw data
set; however, there may be other personal identifiers associated with the data,
such as a computer IP address or user email. Many online surveys are collected by
In these cases, since the researcher has email addresses, and possibly other
239
the researcher understand how survey software settings impact whether the data
UOPX IRB application what identifiers will be included with raw data, how long
identifiers will be associated with the data, how the identifiers will be destroyed
once removed from the data, and how the data will be managed and stored
online survey will be kept in a locked file cabinet is not appropriate data
240
Appendix G: Adjusted Online Informed Consent
I need your help with these questions. If you can, please answer all questions so
your forms will be included in the study outcome. None of your personal information is
required. Your answers are private and will help with increasing awareness about talking
among people from different cultures. For example, in America Black women work and
talk with White men at work. There are three sets of questions. 1. Background
with talking at work. 3. How much you like your job now or in the past.
If you agree to do this survey, please select “Accept” giving your Consent. You
are saying that you are 21 years old or older. You may withdraw from the study at any
time by leaving a voice mail message at 559 779-9748. Do not identify yourself. State
your answers for questions 2 through 8—because the researcher does not obtain nor can
241
Appendix H: Process for Waiver/Adjusted Informed Consent
Consistent with the UOPX IRB Informed Consent – Guidance & Checklist, I
will request to waive or alter the Informed Consent for an online survey, which is
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/use-electronic-informed-
consent-questions-and-answers/index.html#toc1
informed consent are set forth in 21 CFR parts 11, 50, and 56, respectively. HHS
requirements regarding the protection of human subjects are set forth in 45 CFR part
46. The information presented to the subject, processes used for obtaining informed
consent, and documentation of the eIC must meet the requirements of these and other
applicable regulations.
Any eIC should be easy to navigate, allowing the user to proceed forward or
backward within the system and to stop and continue at a later time. Hyperlinks may
be provided where helpful. The eIC may also incorporate electronic strategies to
encourage subjects to access all of the consent material before documenting their
consent.
paper-based informed consent processes in order to best address the subject’s needs
242
throughout the course of the study. For example, some subjects may prefer one
method over another. Other subjects may have difficulty navigating or using
electronic systems because of, for example, a lack of familiarity with electronic
systems, poor eyesight, or impaired motor skills. In such cases, the eIC process may
not be appropriate for these subjects. Therefore, subjects should have the option to
be appropriate for investigators or study personnel to assist subjects in using the eIC
technology. For example, study personnel may help the subject navigate the consent
243
Appendix I: Institutional Review Board Non-Disclosure Agreement
244
Information to protect the confidential nature of the Confidential Information as
set forth herein.
10. The interpretation and validity of this Agreement and the rights of the parties shall
be governed by the laws of the State of <insert state where the parties reside>.
11. The parties to this Agreement agree that a copy of the original signature (including
an electronic copy) may be used for any and all purposes for which the original
signature may have been used. The parties further waive any right to challenge the
admissibility or authenticity of this document in a court of law based solely on the
absence of an original signature.
245
Appendix J1: Approval to Use the CCC Questionnaire--Lapinski & Orbe
246
Appendix J2: Approval to use the CCC Questionnaire--Rudick et al.
247
Appendix K: Approval to use the JSS & Conditions--Spector
scale.
Sharing Results
A condition for free use of these assessments is that you share results. The
2. Sample size
3. Brief description of sample, e.g., 220 hospital nurses. I don’t need to know
4. Name of country where collected, and if outside of the U.S., the language
thesis, etc.). You can share the material with me via e-mail: pspector@usf.edu
248
For commercial uses there is a fee for using these scales. A commercial
use means you are charging someone a fee to provide a service that includes use
Copyright (c) 2020 Professor Paul E. Spector, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
The Job Satisfaction Survey, JSS is a 36 item, nine facet scale to assess employee
attitudes about the job and aspects of the job. Each facet is assessed with four
items, and a total score is computed from all items. A summated rating scale
format is used, with six choices per item ranging from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree”. Items are written in both directions, so about half must be
reverse scored.
(required the nine facets are Pay, Promotion, Supervision, Fringe Benefits,
Communication. Although the JSS was originally developed for use in human
this website include a wide range of organization types in both private and public
sector.
For more information about the development and psychometric properties of the
249
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction:
ResearchGate http://www.paulspector.com
http://paulspector.com/scales/our-assessments/conditions-for-using-these-assessments/
250
Appendix L: Description -- JSS and Subscales
The Job Satisfaction Survey, JSS is a 36 item, nine facet scale to assess
employee attitudes about the job and aspects of the job. Each facet is assessed
with four items, and a total score is computed from all items. A summated rating
scale format is used, with six choices per item ranging from "strongly disagree" to
"strongly agree". Items are written in both directions, so about half must be
reverse scored. The nine facets are Pay, Promotion, Supervision, Fringe Benefits,
Communication. Although the JSS was originally developed for use in human
this website include a wide range of organization types in both private and public
sample of 2,870.
251
Communication .71 Communication within the organization
For more information about the development and psychometric properties of the
191-200. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqg038
252
Appendix M: Instructions for Scoring the JSS
The Job Satisfaction Survey or JSS, has some of its items written in each
items each, can range from 4 to 24; while scores for total job satisfaction, based on
the sum of all 36 items, can range from 36 to 216. Each item is scored from 1 to 6 if
the original response choices are used. High scores on the scale represent job
satisfaction, so the scores on the negatively worded items must be reversed before
summing with the positively worded into facet or total scores. A score of 6
the scale has not been modified and the original agree-disagree response choices
are used.
2. The negatively worded items should be reverse scored. Below are the reversals
for the original item score in the left column and reversed item score in the right.
The rightmost values should be substituted for the leftmost. This can also be
accomplished by subtracting the original values for the internal items from 7.
253
1=6 6-1
2=5 4-3
3=4 5-2
3. Negatively worded items are 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29,
31, 32, 34, 36. Note the reversals are NOT every other one. Sum responses to 4
items for each facet score and all items for total score after the reversals from
4. If some items are missing you must make an adjustment otherwise the score
will be too low. The best procedure is to compute the mean score per item for
the individual, and substitute that mean for missing items. For example, if a
person does not make a response to one item, take the total from step four,
divide by the number answered or three for a facet or 35 for total, and
substitute this number for the missing item by adding it to the total from step
for each of the missing items. Since the center of the scale is between three
and four, either number could be used. One should alternate the two numbers
254
Interpreting Satisfaction Scores with the Job Satisfaction Survey
The JSS assesses job satisfaction on a continuum from low (dissatisfied) to high
(satisfied). There are no specific cut scores that determine whether an individual is
particular score that is the dividing line between satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Where
there is a need to draw conclusions about satisfaction versus dissatisfaction for samples
or individuals, two approaches can be used. The normative approach would compare the
target person/sample to the norms for the sample. Spector’s (1994) website provides
norms for several different groups. One can reference the norms and describe given
individuals/samples as being more satisfied, dissatisfied, or about the same as the norms.
These norms are limited in three ways. First, there are a small number of occupations and
organizations represented. Second, the norms are not from representative samples, but
rather are an accumulation of mostly convenience samples others share with Spector. In
other words, they are a convenience sample of convenience samples. Third, the norms are
mainly from North America--Canada and the United States. Mean levels of job
satisfaction vary across countries, so one should not assume these norms are
representative of other countries, particularly those that are culturally dissimilar from
North America.
The absolute approach picks some logical, if arbitrary cut scores to represent
dissatisfaction versus satisfaction. Given the JSS uses 6-point agree-disagree response
choices, one can assume that agreement with positively-worded items and disagreement
255
dissatisfaction. For the 4-item subscales, as well as the 36-item total score, this means
that scores with a mean item response (after reverse scoring the negatively-worded items)
dissatisfaction. Mean scores between 3 and 4 are ambivalence. Translated into the
summed scores, for the 4-item subscales with a range from 4 to 24, scores of 4 to 12 are
dissatisfied, 16 to 24 are satisfied, and between 12 and 16 are ambivalent. For the 36-item
total where possible scores range from 36 to 216, the ranges are 36 to 108 for
dissatisfaction, 144 to 216 for satisfaction, and between 108 and 144 for ambivalent.
Note. The JSS is a copyrighted scale. It can be used free of charge for noncommercial
educational and research purposes, in return for the sharing of results. See the "Sharing of
results" page above for instructions. The JSS is copyright © 1994, Paul E. Spector, all
rights reserved. All reproductions of the JSS should include this copyright notice.
https://paulspector.com/assessments/pauls-no-cost-assessments/job-satisfaction-survey-
jss/
Updated 2022
(JSS). The JSS assesses job satisfaction on a continuum from low (dissatisfied) to high
(satisfied). There are no specific cut scores that determine whether an individual is
particular score that is the dividing line between satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Where
256
there is a need to draw conclusions about satisfaction versus dissatisfaction for samples
The normative approach would compare the target person/sample to the norms for
the sample. My website provides norms for several different groups. One can reference
the norms and describe given individuals/samples as being more satisfied, dissatisfied, or
about the same as the norms. These norms are limited in three ways. First, there are a
small number of occupations and organizations represented. Second, the norms are not
samples people send me. In other words, they are a convenience sample of convenience
samples. Third, the norms are mainly from North America—Canada and the U.S. Mean
levels of job satisfaction varies across countries, so one should not assume these norms
are representative of other countries, particularly those that are culturally dissimilar from
North America.
The absolute approach picks some logical, if arbitrary cut scores to represent
dissatisfaction versus satisfaction. Given the JSS uses 6-point agree-disagree response
choices, we can assume that agreement with positively-worded items and disagreement
dissatisfaction. For the 4-item subscales, as well as the 36-item total score, this means
that scores with a mean item response (after reverse scoring the negatively-worded items)
dissatisfaction. Mean scores between 3 and 4 are ambivalence. Translated into the
summed scores, for the 4-item subscales with a range from 4 to 24, scores of 4 to 12 are
257
dissatisfied, 16 to 24 are satisfied, and between 12 and 16 are ambivalent. For the 36-item
total where possible scores range from 36 to 216, the ranges are 36 to 108 for
dissatisfaction, 144 to 216 for satisfaction, and between 108 and 144 for ambivalent.
Note. Job Satisfaction Survey, copyright Paul E. Spector, 1994. All rights reserved.
https://paulspector.com/assessments/pauls-no-cost-assessments/job-satisfaction-survey-
jss/
258
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Phoenix. She holds two
Masters of Science degrees in: Industrial and Organizational Psychology and Counseling-
-Marriage, Family, and Child Therapy, with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business
communication skills used in the American workplace but not learned in a secondary or
postsecondary classroom.
259
ProQuest Number: 29209164
This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA