It is indeed a mixed bag of emotions when we look at how first-generation Asian immigrant managers struggle to assimilate into their new working venues. The mere chance of possessing a most coveted opportunity to develop their careers in the USA evokes emotions that range from a euphoric high on one end for some to a melancholy low on the other for others. The feeling of excitement is not difficult to understand. Despondency, in the course of their work life, however, is another. This may be brought on by a combination of overestimations of their own capabilities, the unlearning of old methods, unmet expectations on the job, or the inability to surmount hard-to-define invisible hurdles in the workplace.
Regardless of the state of their emotions, the plight and the success they achieve as managers in newfound work venues are products of their latent traits and practices carried from the old land and results of new work-based experiences encountered in the new land. Knowing which factors influence their workaday lives can be helpful in not just assimilating smoothly but also capitalizing on seemingly novel opportunities at work.
It goes without saying that Asian immigrants living in the United States carry with them a profound ambivalence toward their new challenges. Most Asian immigrants are deeply rooted in their language, communication patterns, interpretative cues, and views of authority. As much as many of them look to the new life in the United States as both a novel and exciting experience, their undoing is often found in their inability to divorce themselves from the cultural manacles that they have lived and accepted as normal. This includes the perception of superiority brought on by well-entrenched class systems, and worse, they have an "exit door" available to them if and when their stay in the new country does not yield productive results. There is always "home" in an Asian city somewhere or in a backcountry farmland replete with relatives and friends. Unlike émigrés and expatriates, say, from the Balkan states and their Jewish citizens who, to some degree, have always been strangers in their own land because of ongoing crises and have fewer options, Asians have always been secure and resolute in their definition of their sense of home and origin.
Accolades afforded to Asian immigrant managers are many, most of them in embarrassingly glowing terms. They have been praised for their educational credentials, high literacy rate, numeracy skills, and exemplary work ethic. These praises have served as social arbiters for them in the new land but in many respects failed to truly deliver their bona fide and rightful value especially to those attempting to climb the corporate ladder. And when we correlate these assets to their achievements in the workplace we find a yawning gap between the lack of visible advancement in relation to levels of rank, responsibility, and respectability that they (managers) possessed back in their old country.
So, what gives?
On a high note the steady conversion of many post industrial economy-driven cities into service - oriented work capitals like New York, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh have provided havens for many immigrant workers from Asia. The decline in white employment over the last twenty years went hand in glove with the influx of Asian minorities in service-specific industries like foodservice, hospitality, healthcare, and service maintenance thus yielding a new ethnic division of labor. Steeped in a service-oriented economy in their homeland Asian workers filled jobs that were vacated by their White counterparts. Sadly, the rise and promotions of Asian managers in their respective fields did not measure up to the increase in their population.
Let us take New York as a microcosm of the US labor market. The 1970-1980 Census of Population of the City of New York showed a 300% jump in employment in Asian foreign-born workers while Asian foreign-born Managers gained employment by 400% within that ten-year span. What appear to be impressive figures can be deceiving however. The surface trend in this census showed a demographic shift of distribution of the White labor pool - away from retail, sales, civil-service sectors - created further opportunities for non-White work opportunities. At a cursory look the numbers do not appear to trigger alarm bells but a closer scrutiny of the census exposes a disconcerting reality. Found in this twenty-year old survey are indisputable facts that Whites held the best-paid and power-laden positions - as they still do to this day. Also, they occupied the best-rewarded positions in growth industries and were concentrated in higher hierarchy. Furthermore, they dominated the top positions in the white-collar sector.
The Glass Ceiling Commission formed during Elizabeth Dole's tenure as Labor Secretary, released a report in 1995 - twenty- five years after the New York City survey - confirming that the pernicious glass ceiling still exists in today's working society, which simply validates what Asian managers already experienced about a quarter century ago in New York. Their report revealed the following: 97 percent of senior managers of Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 companies are White males. In addition, although 5 percent of senior managers in the Fortune 2000 and industrial and service corporations are women, all of them are White.
In addition, among Asian workers who are employed in managerial positions, the same finding showed that they were selected to manage R&D departments and projects or food service work areas. Furthermore, Asian managers who were hired or promoted to their posts were selected to manage or oversee Asian dominated work crews. Just as deleterious is that many Asian managers are passed over for promotions. Thus we can all go agog about publicized token promotions and preferential allocations but the fact stands that Asian managerial promotions do not measure up to their deserved skills, and the ratio of Asian managers relative to their population in the workplace is still abysmally low.
Since the 1970's, out of the top seven national origins of immigrants to the United States, five are Asian nations namely, the Philippines coming in second only to Mexico, while Korea, Vietnam, China, and India placed third, fourth, sixth, and seventh respectively. Current labor demands in the USA continue to attract the best and the brightest from these countries but the feeling of exhilaration among those who undergo career adjustments when they arrive in this country is eventually tempered by the realities of promotional stagnation if not starvation.
Asia's educational educational template has significant roots in the United States's own and highly touted educational system. It appears that as a group Asians have taken the importance of education more seriously than other ethnic communities. The consequence for them both here in the USA and Europe is a much higher socioeconomic status than any other ethnic grouping. To illustrate, the current median household income of Asians ($49,000) exceeds that of Whites ($44,000).
The belief among Asians that college level education and professional credentials serve as tickets to good-paying jobs and upward mobility continue to dominate the prevailing culture and has carried on to the second generation Asians as well. This notion is rooted in a tradition that carries respect for the value of education and learning. The result is a highly educated ethnic labor sector whose reputation carries far and wide across continents. It is no surprise that Indians are sought for their software and computer knowledge, Filipinos are recruited for their nursing credentials, and Japanese for their engineering skills. But the common criticism is that they have communication impediments brought about by not having English as their mother tongue. Consequently, many of those who receive the best positions are those with credentials in engineering, life sciences, and the physical sciences. Those in the humanities, arts, and language and communication fields lag behind. Over time these stereotypical positions are reinforced by workers' choices of profession and further strengthened by both employment assignments by companies that place them in positions that do not magnify their language usage limitations. Sadly, management is often a career stop that is less often highlighted on their career development tracks.
To date, education still plays a role in Asian culture and has now spread systematically to work settings. For example, Yanagicho, Toshiba's largest plant in Japan continually places a premium on education at work as evidenced by daily roll-calls highlighting QC circle briefings, work team learning exercises, and other on-the-job training activities. Off-work education is just as important exemplified by one-third of the company's budget allocated to of-the-job performance. Within the Asian culture education is a habit extremely hard to break.
It is undeniable that Asians do occupy a rather reputable image when associated to educational attainment, income level, and overall economic status compared to other minorities. Relatively, there obviously exists a marked disparity from other ethnic groups, but from a standpoint of overall parity the injustice and imbalance are blatantly palpable.
The positive spin on this stereotype is that Asian managers are technologically savvy, resourceful, industrious, and collaboratively - minded. They are "nice people" noted for their patience, politeness, passiveness, and non-confrontational nature. The downside is that as managers, they do not have the relational competency, the political will, and the leadership skills to render hard, decisive decisions in the face of demanding challenges. It is the absence of the killer instinct, the aggressive, go-for-the-gold competitiveness that seems to keep Asian managers out of the top-tier, senior managerial positions. It is not hard to imagine that deep cultural traits manifest themselves in career development choices and vocational behaviors and consequently in job promotions. Traditional Asian cultural traits of non-conformity, submission, and diffidence all underscore their values of respect of authority, and submergence of individuality. Unfortunately, they do not score high in the ultra-competitive world of American business.
Old habits die hard is the tired cliché for this practice. Socio-cultural and political structures of Asian countries contribute quite heavily to management styles of their managers and basic business practices at work. Revolutions and economic upheavals helped create deep changes between the 1900 and 1975 in most parts of the Asian continent but the core values and essential economic features of individual countries remained relatively unchanged. In addition, a long exposure to non-democratic political rule and corporatism has contributed to this condition of virtual status quo.
Because of the value given to education, many Asian managers are undoubtedly educated. Many graduated from top rated schools because their parents could afford to send them there; others rose from hardship through sheer grit and determination and attained self-sufficiency through educational accomplishments and eventually gained power and authority by wielding high positions in industry and government. What remains constant, however, is their view of the working class. Because of this perceived elevated class status, they believe - to this day - in their superiority and traditional positions, which serve as justification for their authority and domination over the working mass.
Managerial authoritarianism characterized by paternalistic control, financial dominance, and educational superiority, thus becomes an accepted practice by Asian managers. When these practices are applied in the USA, the result becomes frustrating and catastrophic to their careers. Case in point: The Filipino-American United Church of Christ in Fremont, California, a typical first generation immigrant Church exemplified this patriarchal, top-down form of management at one point during its nineteen years of existence. The Moderator (equivalent to Chief Administrative Officer), because he was most senior and was a respected CPA in Manila, assumed that his word and wishes would go without challenge from other Council members who were either second - generation immigrants or assimilated immigrant professionals in the USA. He was never more wrong! The consequence was a tumultuous administration. This eventually led to the Moderator's resignation and a painfully strained relationship with the rest of the Church leaders.
The "boss man" mentality is still very much evident in the honorific system employed in the Philippines where Sir and Ma'am are staple titular greetings gratuitously uttered by underlings. In spite of the air of courtesy that comes with the greeting, it also establishes a verbal recognition of disparity where one party acknowledges the difference and the other accepts. "Doctor", "Attorney", "Engineer", precede names not simply in a mechanistic social salutary fashion but rather as a nominal demarcation that underscores express heirarchical differentiation.
This management mode, unless mediated by deeper human relations skills and abandonment of the old Taylorian form of managing people, can and will produce nothing but grief and frustration to its practitioners in the United States. Although authoritarianism exists in USA, UK, and other economically advanced countries, humanistic practices in management predominate the professions and are given paramount significance with regard to their relationship to overall organizational performance and relationships.
Never since the ratification of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 have corporations ever made more good business sense in hiring minorities than today. Political and economic climates both within and without the organization now appear conducive to development of a diversified workforce but despite its favor the debate rages about its overall effectiveness. Corporations who understand the value of diversity see a clear link between strategy, reality, and competition. Today, top management looks at the notion of diversity as a germinating ground for new ideas, cultural exchange, and a source for fresh perspectives with the end goal of creating a responsive and forward-thinking organization. Its faults notwithstanding, this is one opportunity that Asian managers must not pass up.
A bellwether publication, the Hispanic Business Corporate Diversity Report of 2002, tells of a revealing picture of how leading corporations view inclusion of ethnic workers as part and parcel of their corporate policies. They show companies who made great strides in the recent past and continually do so to position themselves in the marketplace as the best place for which to work. The following are corporations that show the heftiest diversity payroll:
- Domino's Pizza
- SBC Communications
- Avon
- General Mills
- Pepsico
- Southwest Airlines
- Philip Morris
- Adolph Coors
- Coca-Cola
- Verizon
If Asian managers appear to receive promotions or are made to manage a workforce that are predominantly Asians as observed earlier, we can then easily infer that corporations like the ones listed above are the best launching pads for any managerial career. However, caution must be heeded since this can pigeon-hole managers into an already narrow path that may prove more difficult for them to reverse.
Since any serious diversity initiative requires a significant budget allocation and organizational infrastructure support, it goes without saying that any corporate drive of this magnitude starts from the top and will only be sustained with continuous support from the top. External factors like statutory mandate, socio-cultural influence, and market pressure all contribute to helping various segments within corporations view the notion of work inclusion with enthusiasm with a mild eye. Thus a commitment from top management, an all-embracing work policy, financial support, active internal policies, and open and affirming declaration all contribute to an environment that is not only contributive but also committed. When the commitment begins to be embedded into the corporate culture and reaches critical mass where the spirit of diversity finally takes its own place in the corporate psyche and is expressed freely and openly through distinct symbols, jargons, shared meanings, and practices, then and only then can we let out a sigh of relief that true inclusion has gained traction and is on its way forward. If there is one bright spot those Asian managers can look up to and illuminate their career paths, this is it.
It is quite clear that there are two factors that need to work conjuctively in order for Asian managers to get a leg up in the hyper-competitive world of career advancement in the USA.
First, the shedding of potentially destructive old management habits is vital. This implies that Asian managers must take concerted efforts to unlearn old-fashioned and outmoded styles of getting work done through others. It also suggests that they must accelerate the acquisition of interpersonal skills to help augment their relational competencies. Second, the adaptation of corporations of systemic practices that offer opportunities and stable tracks for Asian managers to succeed must be present. The latter proposition rests on placing provisions to hire and promote Asian managers into a company's business plan. It also means imputing accountability metrics upon top management to see to it that they rid any semblance of exclusion and impediment within their corporate environments. In addition, it implies that top management must provide direct routes and clear career lanes for Asian managers through mentorship, shadowing, and parallel fast tracking as they do with their White counterparts.
