Research That Matters (January 17 - 20, 2008)

Purpose: Numerous studies on organizational transformation focus on the causal relationships between how the change is framed or rationalized, the outcomes of the effort, and the effectiveness (Allen, 2002; Dyck, 1996; Perlmutter, 2000). Research suggests that when change rationales are embedded in organizational culture and engage the entire organization, the transformations are more substantial and permanent (Newman, 2000; Nutt & Backoff, 1997; Schein, 2004). Focusing on human service agencies, this paper examines a particular type of change -- multicultural development (MD). While the importance of facilitating diversity or developing cultural competency in agencies is well documented, there is relatively little attention to transforming the organization as a whole (author, 2004; Gutierrez & Nagda, 1996). Reasons for engaging in multicultural development typically are rooted in the changing demographics of staff and client populations and often result in training and programmatic initiatives. While important, such efforts and outcomes do not address core agency values or processes and consequently tend not to be sustainable (author, 2006; Gutierrez et al, 2000). By analyzing various frames (rationales) for multicultural development and the subsequent scope and effects of the change, this study contributes to understanding how the framing of organizational transformation shapes its scale and quality.

Method: This is an exploratory, qualitative study based on 40 in-depth interviews with a diverse sample of practitioners and consultants familiar with multicultural development and 3 case studies of agencies that exhibited distinct rationales for engaging in multicultural development and experienced varying degrees of success and sustainability. Data were analyzed using the constant comparison method (Charmaz, 1983; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Based on themes regarding MD processes, analytical categories were developed, including identification of rationales for undertaking such initiatives and effects that these reasons had on subsequent change efforts.

Results: Interview data indicate that the primary reasons for undertaking multicultural development involved “being responsive to clients,” “it [MD] is the ‘right' thing to do,” and “MD will smooth hiring/retention processes.” These are primarily altruistic rationales, but are not tied to organizational culture or more encompassing efforts. Few respondents articulated reasons that understood MD as a process involving the total organization such as “[MD] is part of larger strategic planning” or “[MD] building on previous agency work.” Change outcomes suggest a link between rationales and results, as the more altruistic reasons led to narrow outcomes (i.e. a bilingual brochure), while broader framing led to organization-wide change (i.e. internal mentoring and career ladders). Overall, respondents agreed on why agencies undertook multicultural development. One disparity was that consultants asserted that agencies engaged in MD as a means of responding to crises and the resulting efforts were limited to short-term and often superficial measures; few practitioners indicated this was a rationale. The organizational case studies illustrate these findings in greater depth. The three agencies differ in terms of rationales, change trajectories and outcomes, and demonstrate how the framing of change matters in terms of results. Based on this study's findings, implications for how agency personnel should engage in multicultural development will be delineated.