Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2020 Comparison of Work-Related Values and Leadership Preferences of Mexican Immigrants and Caucasians Alonso Raul Duarte Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations Part of the Cultural Resource Management and Policy Analysis Commons This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact ScholarWorks@waldenu.edu. Walden University College of Management and Technology This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by Alonso Duarte has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review Committee Dr. Elizabeth Thompson, Committee Chairperson, Management Faculty Dr. David Cavazos, Committee Member, Management Faculty Dr. Robert Levasseur, University Reviewer, Management Faculty Chief Academic Officer and Provost Sue Subocz, Ph.D. Walden University 2020 Abstract Comparison of Work-Related Values and Leadership Preferences of Mexican Immigrants and Caucasians by Alonso Duarte MA, University of Phoenix, 2011 BS, University of Phoenix, 2009 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Management Walden University February 2020 Abstract Globalization has made it easier for people to migrate, thus increasing diversity within organizations. One problem with this migration is that 1st and 2nd generation immigrants may prefer different leadership styles than those of the mainstream culture. The purpose of this survey-based quantitative comparative study was to investigate the effects of acculturation on the work-related cultural values and leadership style preferences of Mexican immigrants living in the United States. The research question that guided this study focused on the differences in work-related cultural values and preferred leadership styles between 2 generations of Mexican immigrants, Mexicans, and U.S.-born Caucasians. Two hundred and forty-five participants completed the survey. The researcher used a Likert-type self-assessing questionnaire adapted from existing instruments to measure the work-related cultural values and preferred leadership styles of two generations of Mexican immigrants, native Mexicans, and U.S.-born Caucasians. Statistical tools, such as correlations, Cronbach's alpha, t-test, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to test measurement reliability and to test for differences in the mean scores of the criterion variables among the 4 groups. The researcher found that, in the aggregate, Mexican immigrants did not acculturate to the mainstream values of the United States, 2nd generation Mexican immigrants' scores were similar to those of U.S.born Caucasians in work-related values, and all groups prefer the servant leadership style. Implications for social change may include raising the awareness of human resource managers of the differences and similarities in values and preferences of their staff, which may help improve the relationships between managers and the employees. Comparison of Work-Related Values and Leadership Preferences of Mexican Immigrants and Caucasians by Alonso Duarte MA, University of Phoenix, 2011 BS, University of Phoenix, 2009 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Management Walden University February 2020 Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to my lovely wife, Joanna, and my children, Jasmine Marie, Amber Joann, and Alonso Gerard. You are my life. Your love and brutal honesty made me a better husband and father. Thank you for your love, understanding, and sacrifice. I could not have done this without your support. Acknowledgments The completion of this study was possible because of the support and guidance of several people, to whom I owe my heartfelt gratitude. Dr. Elizabeth Thompson thank you for taking over as my committee chair and guiding me through the finish line. Dr. David Cavazos, Dr. Robert Levasseur, Dr. Sunil Hazari, and Dr. Godwin O. Igein thank you for your feedback and for your time serving in my committee. Dr. Lee W. Lee thank you for believing in me and guiding me at the start of my journey. Dr. Vasyl Taras for your inspiration and advice. Dr. Fabiola Lango and Dr. Veronica Lango for being there for me in my time of need. I am very grateful for the support from Deborah McGrath, my coworkers, and my peers. To all the participants in the study, thank you for taking the time to contribute to my research. To my Parents Fernando and Elizabeth, I owe you everything. To my brothers Fernando, Goose, ad Enrique, thank you for being there. To my wife Joanna and my children Jasmine, Amber, and Alonso, thank you for the sacrifices you made to allow me to dedicate time to my studies and research. I could not have done this without your love, patience, and understanding. i Table of Contents List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1 Background of Problem .................................................................................................2 Problem Statement .........................................................................................................5 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................6 Specific Research Questions and Hypotheses ...............................................................7 Acculturation of Values .........................................................................................10 Acculturation of Values .........................................................................................11 Leadership Preferences ..........................................................................................13 Alignment of Leadership Preferences ....................................................................15 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................17 Nature of the Study ......................................................................................................17 Definitions....................................................................................................................18 Assumptions .................................................................................................................21 Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................21 Limitations ...................................................................................................................22 Significance of Study ...................................................................................................23 Significance to Theory ...........................................................................................24 Significance to Practice..........................................................................................24 Significance to Social Change ...............................................................................25 ii Summary ......................................................................................................................26 Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................27 Literature Search Strategy............................................................................................27 Theoretical Foundation ................................................................................................28 Bi-dimensional Model of Acculturation ................................................................29 Individual Work-Related Cultural Values Model ..................................................31 Culturally Endorsed Implicit Leadership Theory ..................................................34 Literature Review.........................................................................................................36 Overview ......................................................................................................................37 Culture Differences ......................................................................................................38 Conceptualizing Culture ........................................................................................38 Comparing Cultures ...............................................................................................40 Differences between Mexico and the United States ..............................................43 Within Country Variability ....................................................................................46 Individual-Level Cultural Values ..........................................................................47 Individual-Level, Work-Related Cultural Values ..................................................48 Culture and Leadership ................................................................................................51 Leadership Preferences ..........................................................................................52 Mexicans in the United States......................................................................................57 Acculturation................................................................................................................58 Factors Related to Acculturation ...........................................................................60 Work-related Acculturation ...................................................................................63 iii Conclusion ...................................................................................................................63 Chapter 3: Research Method ..............................................................................................67 Research Design and Rationale ...................................................................................67 Methodology ................................................................................................................68 Population ..............................................................................................................68 Sample....................................................................................................................70 Sampling Procedures .............................................................................................71 Instrumentation and Operationalization of the Constructs ..........................................73 Leadership Preferences ..........................................................................................74 Work-Related Cultural Values ...............................................................................82 Acculturation..........................................................................................................85 Independent Variables ...........................................................................................89 Pilot Study ..............................................................................................................90 Data Analysis Plan .......................................................................................................90 Hypotheses Testing ................................................................................................94 Threats to Validity .......................................................................................................95 External Validity ....................................................................................................96 Internal Validity .....................................................................................................97 Construct Validity ..................................................................................................98 Ethical Procedures .................................................................................................99 Summary ....................................................................................................................100 Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................101 iv Pilot Study ..................................................................................................................102 Data Collection ..........................................................................................................104 Study Results .............................................................................................................107 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................107 Measurement ........................................................................................................107 Hypotheses Testing ..............................................................................................110 Work-Related Cultural Values .............................................................................111 Acculturation of Values .......................................................................................115 Leadership Preferences ........................................................................................123 Alignment of Leadership Preferences ..................................................................125 Summary ....................................................................................................................130 Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations ..........................................131 Interpretation of Findings ..........................................................................................131 Acculturation of Values .......................................................................................132 Leadership Preferences ........................................................................................140 Summary of Findings ...........................................................................................143 Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................144 Recommendations ......................................................................................................145 Implications................................................................................................................148 Conclusion .................................................................................................................150 References ........................................................................................................................152 Appendix A: Permission to Use The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale ............182 v Appendix B: Permission to Use Work Related Value Assessment .................................186 Appendix C: Permission to Use Paternalism Scale .........................................................187 Appendix D: Permission to Use Servant Leadership Scale .............................................188 Appendix E: Invitation to Participate in Survey ..............................................................190 Appendix F: Survey Questionnaire ..................................................................................192 Appendix G: Relationship between Survey Items and Research Questions....................199 Appendix H: Correlations between Servant and Paternalistic Leadership Items ............200 Appendix I: Means of Paternalistic Leadership Scale Individual Scores ........................201 vi List of Tables Table 1. Acculturation of Mexican Immigrants and their Preferred Leadership Styles ..... 8 Table 2. Breakdown of Caucasian and Mexican population between the Napa and Solano Counties .................................................................................................................... 69 Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Scales in the Pilot Study ............................................ 103 Table 4. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample ..................................................... 106 Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Scales ........................................................................ 108 Table 6. Skewness and Kurtosis of the Scales ............................................................... 109 Table 7. Mann-Whitney U test for first-generation and young Mexican immigrants .... 110 Table 8. Means of Work-Related Values Acculturation between Caucasians, Mexicans, and Mexican immigrants......................................................................................... 111 Table 9. Means of Work-Related Values Acculturation between Caucasians, Mexicans, First-Generation Mexican Immigrants, and Second-Generation Mexican Immigrants. ................................................................................................................................. 113 Table 10. Means of Main Stream and Mexican Values between Caucasians, Mexicans, First-Generation Mexican Immigrants, and Second-Generation Mexican Immigrants ................................................................................................................................. 116 Table 11. Means of Main Stream and Mexican Values between Caucasians, Mexicans, and Mexican immigrants......................................................................................... 117 Table 12. Means of Leadership Preferences between Caucasians, Mexicans, and Mexican immigrants ............................................................................................... 123 vii Table 13. Means of Leadership Preferences between Caucasians, Mexicans, FirstGeneration Mexican Immigrants, and Second-Generation Mexican Immigrants .. 125 viii List of Figures Figure 1. Comparison of work-related value preferences. .............................................. 116 Figure 2. Comparison of traditional values preferences ................................................. 120 Figure 3. Comparison of familism factors and independence and self-reliance preferences. ............................................................................................................. 122 Figure 4. Comparison of leadership preferences. ........................................................... 128 Figure 5. Comparison of paternalistic leadership scale items......................................... 129 1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study Globalization has made it easier for people to migrate to different parts of the world, increasing diversity within organizations (Castles, De Haas, & Miller, 2013; Gelfand, Aycan, Erez, & Leung, 2017). Leadership preferences and work-related values depend on and vary across cultures, which complicates leading multicultural teams (Hofstede, 1993; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Migrants carry with them their native culture and seek to preserve it across generations (Choi, Kim, Pekelnicky, & Kim, 2013). The children of immigrants develop a dual set of values. They retain the core values of their parents' culture and certain particularities of the mainstream culture (Kashima, 2016; Zolfaghari, Mӧllering, Clark, & Dietz, 2016). There is a need to address differences in leadership preferences based on local, cultural differences. Immigrants may prefer leadership styles different from the locals. Despite all the research that exists linking leadership preferences to culture, there is a gap in knowledge about the relationship between the cultural values of firstand second-generation immigrants and their leadership preferences. As a starting point to addressing this gap, I investigated the differences in work-related cultural values and preferred leadership styles among generations of Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. The aim was to develop leadership theories that take into account the cultural values of the various members of a multicultural society. The following sections include the background of the problem, problem statement, and purpose of the study, research questions, hypotheses, theoretical framework, and nature of the study, definitions, assumptions, scope, limitations, and significance of the study. 2 Background of Problem Scholars have been studying the link between culture and leadership for decades. Cultural values influence leadership significantly, in both the perception of leadership and how behavior is controlled or influenced. People's most fundamental values form during the first 10 years of life (Hofstede, 2001; Taras, Rowney, & Steel, 2013). Culture and socialization experiences form lay theories that help people understand, act, and react to situations in their environment and behave accordingly (Kashima, 2016). These experiences and settings are different across nations and even when countries neighbor each other. Cross-cultural researchers have demonstrated that leadership preferences vary from one country to another and that the meaning of leadership is rooted in, and changes according to the culture where it is used (Hofstede, 1993; Steers, Sanchez-Runde, & Nardon, 2012). Individuals who grow up in a culture-specific rich environment tend to embrace such culture and learn to interpret the world from that perspective, regardless of where they live (Fitzsimmons, 2013). As people migrate to other parts of the world, they bring with them their unique perspective and may have a hard time understanding a different view. People assume those with whom they interact will behave according to their expectation (Knowles, Morris, Chiu, & Hong, 2001), and when that is not the case, misinterpretation and miscommunication may occur, which could lead to conflict (Kim, Yamaguchi, Kim, & Miyahara, 2015). In most of the cross-cultural research studies, researchers compared work-related values and leadership preferences across nations, assuming there is a consensus of beliefs within each nation, and often failing to consider acculturation as a factor. 3 Culture, as defined in most cross-cultural studies, relies on the notion that people within a societal group share similar values. Hofstede (2001), for example, defined culture as "the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another" (p. 9). In this definition, Hofstede referred to the mind as the way people feel, think, and act, resulting in attitudes, beliefs, and abilities. Culture includes a set of imperceptible values that manifest as behavior. This construct is useful for comparing culture across societies as it relies on the assumption that a consensus on the importance of values exist within societal groups and differs from other groups (Fischer & Schwartz, 2011; Schwartz, 2014; Zolfaghari et al., 2016). In largely diverse countries the assumed consensus of values may be nonexistent, except for culturally linked values (Venaik & Midgley, 2015). This notion indicates that to compare cultural groups within the same society requires research at the value level of the individual. Culture does not influence the values of people the same way; people form and internalize values differently according to experiences and personal goals (Fischer & Schwartz, 2011). In countries with a large immigrant population, the internalized values could vary drastically among the various members of society. People from complex cultures tend to be self-reliant, independent, and self-actualizing, whereas people from non-complex cultures tend to be collectivist, follow norms, and be obedient (Triandis, 1994). When these two different cultures coexist in one country, there are bound to be differences of opinion. Immigrants tend to hold on to the culture from their country of origin after migration and pass it on to their descendants (Ward & Geeraet, 2016). This process tends to prolong the acculturation process. 4 Although research shows that the core values of immigrants change slowly over time (Taras et al., 2013), the process of acculturation is not linear, and several variables affect it such as family, length of time in host country, school and work environment, age at migration, and exposure to local and home country culture (Taras, 2008; Ward & Geeraet, 2016; Zolfaghari et al., 2016). It may take three generations for immigrants to acculturate entirely to a new country (Rumbaut, 2015). Additionally, acculturation studies revealed that acculturation is reciprocal; immigrants and natives exchange elements of their cultures with one another. Immigrants and non-immigrants unknowingly learn from one another, creating a blend of two or more cultures (Celeste, Brown, Tip, & Matera, 2014). In this study, I examined how acculturation affects the work-related values and leadership preferences of immigrants. Firstand secondgeneration immigrants may display and prefer leadership styles reflective of their cultural values, which acculturation may affect. Because followers determine leadership effectiveness and not the leader (House, Javidan, & Dorfman, 2001), managers may be using the wrong management or leadership style for the workforce they manage. Despite all the research in cross-cultural leadership, a gap in knowledge exists in the literature to explain the relationship between the cultural values of immigrants and their leadership preferences. This gap may exist because most of the research on crosscultural leadership focuses on national culture and compares the differences among countries or clusters of nations. Few researchers have examined the intranational cultural differences and their effects on leadership preferences. Most of these researchers (e.g., Chong & Thomas, 1997; Romero, 2005; Rupert, Jehn, van Engen, & de Reuver, 2010; Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013; Jian, 2012) have overlooked the 5 contextual factors that may influence leadership preferences and the cultural values of the participants. Their studies also focused on leadership theories that align with Western views, which tend to classify leadership as either authoritarian or democratic, and often ignore paternalistic leadership as it does not neatly fall into either category (Jackson, 2016). A problem with this approach when comparing intranational cultural differences in leadership preference is that researchers leave out leadership styles that do not align with Western views. Paternalistic leadership, which many consider the ideal leadership style in collectivistic and high power distance societies (Hanges, Aiken, Park, & Su, 2016), such as Mexico, is one of the styles often not included. Organizations may benefit from understanding how to create leadership development programs that not only embrace diversity but also gain a competitive advantage by developing leaders based on the relationship between their cultural identity and leadership preferences. Problem Statement Globalization and global migration are changing the demographics of many nations, and the cultural diversity within them continues to increase. Based on the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey, the number of immigrants in the United States in 2014 was 59 million (Camarota, 2015). According to the U.S. Census (2014), the United States has the second-largest Hispanic population in the world. Hispanics accounted for 17% of the total U.S. population as of July 2013, a 2% increase from 2012. Mexicans make up the majority of the Hispanic community, accounting for more than 64% of the Latino population as of 2012. Researchers often define culture as a complex system that affects behavior through values adopted according to interactions with the environment (Zolfaghari et al., 2016). 6 Researchers measure the differences in leadership preference based on western views of leadership (Jackson, 2016), and researchers predominately describe and measure culture at a national level based on dimensions of presumed shared values (Midgley, Venaik, & Christopoulos, 2018). The current approaches to cross-cultural research in leadership do not account for the growing cultural diversity within countries, the preference for leadership styles, and the dynamics of the acculturation process (Schedlitzki, Ahonen, Wankhade, Edwards, & Gaggiotti, 2017; Shalka, 2017; Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2011). It may take three generations for immigrants to acculturate completely to a new country, as immigrants tend to retain the culture from their country of origin and pass it on to their descendants (Rumbaut, 2015). There is a gap in knowledge about the relationship between the cultural values of immigrants and their preferred leadership style. The general problem is that as the immigrant population grows, the culture of the host country transforms, and the managers of organizations face the challenge of leading employees from various cultural backgrounds with varying leadership preferences. The specific problem is that U.S.-born Caucasian managers face the challenge of understanding the differences between their leadership style and the leadership style preferences of Mexican immigrants. The U.S.born Caucasians' leadership style may be based on Western views and Mexican immigrants may prefer a leadership style reflective of their cultural values, which may vary based on their acculturation level. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this survey-based quantitative comparative study was to investigate the effects of acculturation on the work-related cultural values and leadership 7 style preferences among generations of Mexican immigrants and to compare these findings with U.S.-born Caucasians. Through large-scale cross-cultural studies (see Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004), researchers have demonstrated that there is a relationship between leadership preferences and values, and that values vary from country to country, according to the national culture. As people migrate and incorporate into a different cultural environment, they retain their original cultural values, and it may take them more than two generations to acculturate fully (Rumbaut, 2015). Mexican immigrants make up 65% of the Hispanic population in the United States, which is the second-largest in the world (U.S. Census, 2014). Mexicans have been living in areas now belonging to the United States since before the United States was a country. I designed this study to investigate differences in work-related cultural values (dependent/criterion variable) and leadership preferences (dependent/criterion variables) among generations of Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts (independent/predictor variable). Specific Research Questions and Hypotheses Researchers have shown that values and leadership preferences form during the early stages of human development (Frost, 2016; Huang, Calzada, Cheng, BarajasGonzalez, & Brotman, 2016), vary across nations based on culture (Hofstede, 2001), and that some immigrants retain their values and culture for decades after migration (Rumbaut, 2015; Taras, 2008). These findings lead to questions regarding what occurs to the work-related values of immigrants and their individual leadership preferences. Workrelated values are, in essence, the same as basic values: they are beliefs that guide the behavior and expectations of people in the workplace (Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss 1999). 8 Table 1 Acculturation of Mexican Immigrants and their Preferred Leadership Styles Mexican MexicanAmerican 1st Generation Immigrants MexicanAmerican 2nd Generation (USborn) and Young 1st Generation US-born Caucasians Values and beliefs  Collectivity  Relationshipbased rewards and justice  Familyorientation  Respect for authority figures  Religiousness  Traditional gender roles differentiation  Relaxedsensitivity toward time  Recreationemphasis Carrying more Mexican values and beliefs than American ones. Carrying more American values and beliefs than Mexican ones.  Individuality  Person-based rewards and justice  Achievement oriented  Material success  Independence and selfreliance  Conscious awareness of time  Competition and personal achievement Leadership Styles (preferred) Paternalistic Leadership: an authoritarian and benevolent leader, who is father-like figure taking care of followers' wellbeing. Preferring more paternalistic leadership Preferring more servant leadership Servant Leadership: a servant, who would help followers realize their material success through accomplishment of individual and organizational goals, empowers followers to be independent and achieve. Acculturation Mexican Culture Acculturation Strategies: Separation Acculturation Strategies: Integration, Assimilation American culture 9 Brumley (2014); Doran and Littrell (2013); Espinosa-Hernández, Bissell-Havran, and Nunn (2015); Greenleaf (1977); Hofstede (2001); House et al. (2004); Morgan Consoli, Llamas and Consoli (2016); Öner (2012). Leadership preferences are culturally bound and vary across countries and from person to person according to, among other characteristics, culture and values (Ehrhart, 2012; Wong-Mingli, Kessler, Khilji, & Gopalakrishnan, 2014). Researchers found that values across national cultures vary significantly (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004), that acculturation is not a straight-line process (Berry, 1997; Taras et al., 2013), and that complete acculturation may take more than 20 years (Taras, 2008). Based on the findings mentioned above, it is reasonable to assume that there may be a difference in workrelated values and leadership preferences among generations of immigrants (in this study, Mexicans), which may differ from those of the people of the host country (in this study, U.S.-born Caucasians; see Table 1.). To help guide this study, I derived four research questions from the review of literature in the areas of acculturation, culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory, cross-cultural leadership, and cross-cultural values. Although differences between Mexican and U.S. culture regarding leadership and work-related values are clearly defined in the literature, it was important to investigate them again as part of a comparison between native Mexicans, generations of Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians. The relationship between acculturation and work-related values is hypothesized below. 10 Acculturation of Values Research Question 1 (RQ1): Are there significant differences in work-related cultural values between firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians? Null hypothesis (H011): Native Mexicans (NM) and Mexican immigrants (MI) will score equal or lower on the cultural dimensions of power distance (PD), gender egalitarianism (GE), and status attribution (SA) than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts (US).  μ(PD)NM ≤ μ(PD)US, μ(PD)MI ≤ μ(PD)US  μ(GE)NM ≤ μ(GE)US, μ(GE)MI ≤ μ(GE)US  μ(SA)NM ≤ μ(SA)US, μ(SA)MI ≤ μ(SA)US Alternative hypothesis (Ha11): Native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants will score higher on the cultural dimensions of power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts.  μ(PD)NM > μ(PD)US, μ(PD)MI > μ(PD)US  μ(GE)NM > μ(GE)US, μ(GE)MI > μ(GE)US  μ(SA)NM > μ(SA)US, μ(SA)MI > μ(SA)US Null hypothesis (H012): Second-generation Mexican immigrants (SM) and firstgeneration Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age (YI) will score equal or higher on power distance (PD), gender egalitarianism(GE), and status attribution (SA) than other first-generation Mexican immigrants (FM).  μ(PD)SM ≥ μ(PD)FM, μ(PD)YI ≥ μ(PD)FM 11  μ(GE)SM ≥ μ(GE)FM, μ(GE)YI ≥ μ(GE)FM  μ(SA)SM ≥ μ(SA)FM, μ(SA)YI ≥ μ(SA)FM Alternative hypothesis (Ha12): Second-generation Mexican immigrants and firstgeneration Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score lower on power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution than other first-generation Mexican immigrants.  μ(PD)SM < μ(PD)FM, μ(PD)YI < μ(PD)FM  μ(GE)SM < μ(GE)FM, μ(GE)YI < μ(GE)FM  μ(SA)SM <μ(SA)FM, μ(SA)YI <μ(SA)FM Research Question 2 (RQ2): Are the work-related cultural values of Mexican immigrants more in line with those of Mexico than with those of the United States? Acculturation of Values Null hypothesis (H021): Second-generation Mexican immigrants (SM) and firstgeneration Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age (YI) will score equal or higher on religiosity (RG) and familism (FL), and equal or lower on material success (MS), competition and personal achievement (CPA), and independence and self-reliance (ISR) than other and first-generation Mexican immigrants (FM).  μ(RG)SM≥ μ(RG)FM, μ(RG)YI ≥ μ(RG)FM  μ(FL)SM ≥ μ(FL)FM, μ(FL)YI ≥ μ(FL)FM  μ(MS)SM ≤ μ(MS)FM, μ(MS)YI ≤ μ(MS)FM  μ(CPA)SM ≤ μ(CPA)FM, μ(CPA)YI ≤ μ(CPA)FM  μ(ISR)SM ≤ μ(ISR)FM, μ(ISR)YI ≤ μ(ISR)FM 12 Alternative hypothesis (Ha21): Second-generation Mexican immigrants and firstgeneration Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score lower on religiosity and familism, and higher on material success, competition and personal achievement, and independence and self-reliance than other first-generation Mexican immigrants.  μ(RG)SM < μ(RG)FM, μ(RG)YI < μ(RG)FM  μ(FL)SM < μ(FL)FM, μ(FL)YI < μ(FL)FM  μ(MS)SM > μ(MS)FM, μ(MS)YI > μ(MS)FM  μ(CPA)SM > μ(CPA)FM, μ(CPA)YI > μ(CPA)FM  μ(ISR)SM > μ(ISR)FM, μ(ISR)YI > μ(ISR)FM Null hypothesis (H022): Native Mexicans (NM) and Mexican immigrants (MI) will score equal or lower on the traditional Mexican cultural dimensions of religiosity (RG) and familism (FL), and equal or higher in the U.S. mainstream values of material success (MS), competition and personal achievement (CPA), and independence and selfreliance (ISR) than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts (US).  μ(RG)NM ≤ μ(RG)US, μ(RG)MI ≤ μ(RG)US  μ(FM)NM ≤ μ(FL)US, μ(FM)MI ≤ μ(FL)US  μ(MS)NM ≥ μ(MS)US, μ(MS)MI ≥ μ(MS)US  μ(CPA)NM ≥ μ(CPA)US, μ(CPA)MI ≥ μ(CPA)US  μ(ISR)NM ≥ μ(ISR)US, μ(ISR)MI ≥ μ(ISR)US Alternative hypothesis (Ha22): Native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants will score higher on the traditional Mexican cultural dimensions of religiosity and familism, 13 and lower in the U.S. mainstream values of material success, competition and personal achievement and independence and self-reliance than their U.S.-Born Caucasian counterparts.  μ(RG)MN> μ(RG)US, μ(RG)MI > μ(RG)US  μ(FM)NM > μ(FL)US, μ(FM)MI > μ(FL)US  μ(MS)NM < μ(MS)US, μ(MS)MI < μ(MS)US  μ(CPA)NM < μ(CPA)US, μ(CPA)MI < μ(CPA)US  μ(ISR)NM < μ(ISR)US, μ(ISR)MI < μ(ISR)US Leadership Preferences Research Question 3 (RQ3): What are the differences in the preferred leadership styles among generations of Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts? Null hypothesis (H031): Native Mexicans (NM) will score equal or higher in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness (SO), sense of direction (SD), and feeling of empowerment (FE) and equal or lower in the paternalistic leadership (PL) scale than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts (US).  μ(PL)NM ≤ μ(PL)US  μ(SO)NM ≥ μ(SO)US  μ(SD)NM ≥ μ(SD)US  μ(FE)NM ≥ μ(FE)US Alternative hypothesis (Ha31): Native Mexicans will score higher on the paternalistic leadership scale and lower in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of 14 sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts.  μ(PL)NM > μ(PL)US  μ(SO)NM < μ(SO)US  μ(SD)NM < μ(SD)US  μ(FE)NM < μ(FE)US Null hypothesis (H032): Mexican immigrants (MI) will score equal or higher in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness (SO), sense of direction (SD), and feeling of empowerment (FE) and equal or lower in the paternalistic leadership (PL) scale than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts (US).  μ(PL)MI ≤ μ(PL)US  μ(SO)MI ≥ μ(SO)US  μ(SD)MI ≥ μ(SD)US  μ(FE)MI ≥ μ(FE)US Alternative hypothesis (Ha32): Mexican immigrants will score higher on the paternalistic leadership scale and lower in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts.  μ(PL)MI > μ(PL)US  μ(SO)MI < μ(SO)US  μ(SD)MI < μ(SD)US  μ(FE)MI < μ(FE)US 15 Alignment of Leadership Preferences Research Question 4 (RQ4): Are the preferred leadership styles of Mexican immigrants more in line with those of Mexico than with those of the United States? Null hypothesis (H041): Second-generation Mexican immigrants (SM) and firstgeneration Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age (YI) will score equal or lower in the paternalistic leadership (PL) than other first-generation Mexican immigrants (FM).  μ(PL)SM≤μ(PL)FM  μ(AT)YI ≤μ(PL)FM Alternative hypothesis (Ha41): Second-generation Mexican immigrants and firstgeneration Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score higher in the leadership paternalistic leadership than other first-generation Mexican immigrants.  μ(MC)SM > μ(MC)FM  μ(MC)YI > μ(MC)FM Null hypothesis (H042): Second-generation Mexican immigrants (SM) and firstgeneration Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age (YI) will score equal or higher in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness (SO), sense of direction (SD), and feeling of empowerment (FE) than other first-generation Mexican immigrants (FM).  μ(SO)SM ≥ μ(SO)FM  μ(SO)YI ≥μ(SO)FM  μ(SD)SM ≥ μ(SD)FM 16  μ(SD)YI ≥ μ(SD)FM  μ(FE)SM ≥ μ(FE)FM  μ(FE)YI ≥ μ(FE)FM Alternative hypothesis (Ha42): Second-generation Mexican immigrants and firstgeneration Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score lower in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment than other first-generation immigrants.  μ(SO)SM < μ(SO)FM  μ(SO)YI < μ(SO)FM  μ(SD)SM < μ(SD)FM  μ(SD)YI < μ(SD)FM  μ(FE)SM < μ(FE)FM  μ(FE)YI < μ(FE)FM Using a 5-point Likert-type scale, participants answered questions to a survey developed for this research. Participants scored their answers by not at all agreeing, agreeing a little, somewhat agreeing, very much agreeing, or completely agreeing. To either accept or reject the null hypotheses, analysis of variance, independent samples ttest, and descriptive analysis were used to test if there were differences in the mean scores of the criterion variables among generations of Mexican immigrants and American counterparts. 17 Theoretical Framework Berry's (1997) bidimensional model of acculturation, culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory (CLT; House et al., 2004), and Taras's (2008) model of individual work-related cultural values served as a theoretical framework for this dissertation. According to Berry (1997), acculturation is not linear, and it allows two cultures to coexist independently. People choose one of four strategies when acculturating based on the immigrant's need to retain cultural characteristics and identity and the need to engage and be involved with other cultural groups. House et al. developed CLT for the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project. The concept of individualized implicit leadership theories (ILTs) expanded to account for the influence of culture on leadership style preferences. CLT posits that members of a cultural group use a common frame of reference to form mental models of the ideal leader. Employees use leadership theories to help them understand, form opinions, and develop expectations about leaders by comparing the behavior or outcomes of their managers with the lay theories they have stored in memory. Taras (2008) built a model to measure, at an individual level, values within the cultural and work-related dimensions of power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution. In Chapter 2, the review of the literature on the topics of implicit leadership theories, cross-cultural values, cross-cultural leadership, and acculturation, served to inform this study. Nature of the Study This survey-based quantitative comparative study was designed to investigate differences in work-related cultural values (dependent/criterion variable) and leadership preferences (dependent/criterion variables) among two generations of Mexican 18 immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts (independent/predictor variable). Using a survey was an economical way to accurately and efficiently collect data from samples of the populations and examine the differences and similarities between the variables (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Rea & Parker, 2014). Participants were selected anonymously and the instrument was easily distributed to a large population in a relatively short period of time. As the study focused on the differences and preferences among four cultural groups, a cross-sectional design allowed me to collect the data within the time constraints of this dissertation. I developed measures for the study building on the following instruments: The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale (MACVS; Knight et al., 2010), Individual Work-Related Cultural Values Questionnaire (IWoRC; Taras, 2008), Servant Leadership Scale (Ming, 2005), and Paternalism Scale (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006). The instrument contained 90 Likert-type questions on work-related values, traditional Mexican values, U.S. mainstream values, servant leadership, and paternalistic leadership. I used t-tests and ANOVA to examine if there were differences in the mean scores of the criterion variables between firstand second-generations Mexican immigrants, native Mexicans, and U.S.born Caucasian. Definitions Acculturation: A process by which members of one culture adapt their values, beliefs, and practices in response to direct contact and interactions with members of another culture (Berry, 1980; Keskin, 2013; Taras et al., 2013). Familism: The belief that the needs of the family have priority over the personal needs of any one member, and that members have an obligation toward the family 19 (Campos, Ullman, Aguilera, & Schetter, 2014; Knight et al., 2010; Morgan Consoli & Llamas, 2013). Feeling of empowerment: Given to followers when their leaders are stewards who show dedication to the growth and development of people and community (Ming, 2005). First-generation Mexican immigrant: People born in Mexico who migrated into the United States. Independence and self-reliance: The level of importance given to privacy and the belief that personal achievement comes through individual efforts and the struggle to overcome personal problems rather than expecting or seeking assistance from others. Leaders: "Individuals who are accorded differential influence within a group over the establishment of goals, logistics of coordination, monitoring of effort, and reward and punishment" (Rueden, Gurven, Kaplan, & Stieglitz, 2014). Leadership Preferences: "[F]ollowers' expectations for positive and effective interactions with the leader" (Ehrhart, 2012, pp. 231). Material success: The belief that goods owned, and financial wealth are a measurement of one's achievements in life, thus earning money takes priority (D'AnnaHernandez, Aleman, & Flores, 2015). Paternalistic leader: A leader who adopts the role of a parent to guide, care for, nurture, and protect employees as a father would protect his children (Öner, 2012). Religiousness: The level to which the internalization of faith and participation in religious activities influences individuals' decisions (Barber, 2014; Smith, 2015). 20 Respect: The importance given to intergenerational behaviors and children's submission to and acceptance of parents' mannerisms and decision-making reasoning (Knight et al., 2010). Second-generation Mexican immigrant: U.S.-born children whose parents are first-generation immigrants from Mexico. Sense of direction: The idea that followers' motivation is a result of their leader's clear vision for the organization's future, conceptualization of their perspective, and their ability to persuade followers to act (Ming, 2005). Sense of oneness: The idea that followers develop a sense of unity, a sense of oneness when leaders listen with all senses, show empathy, are self-aware, and strive to heal themselves and others (Ming, 2005). Servant leader: A leader who embodies the10 characteristics of leadership (Greenleaf, 1977; Spears, 2002) of listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. Traditional gender roles: The belief that males and females have different roles in the family and society, and that expectations for each differ according to those beliefs (Campos et al.,2014). U.S.-born Caucasian: White people born in the United States who are from European descent. Work-related cultural values: Conceptualized beliefs that guide people's choices and evaluation of their behavior and that of others in a work environment. 21 Young immigrants. First-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated to the U.S. at the age of 6 or younger. Assumptions The central premise of this study was that the participants would be able to describe their culture, their values, and their leadership preferences. I also assumed that the participants would use integrity and honesty and require no assistance while responding to the survey. Another postulation was that the demographic composition of the participants would not significantly affect the data collected. Variation in demographics (age, occupation, education) could have affected on the average of the value priorities, as different experiences would drive people to organize their values differently (Schwartz, 1999). Last, I assumed that the mood, state of mind, environmental factors, attention span, and form of administration would not materially affect the data collected from the participants. Scope and Delimitations This study was designed to compare the work-related values and leadership preferences of Mexican immigrants, Mexicans, and U.S.-born Caucasians. It is well established in the literature that there is a difference in leadership preferences and workrelated values between Mexicans and U.S.-born Caucasians. However, it was important to collect data from these groups to compare it to data from firstand second-generation Mexicans immigrants living in the United States. The scope of this study was limited to firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians living the Greater San Francisco Bay Area (the Bay Area) in the United States and Mexicans living in Veracruz, Mexico. Mexicans were selected because they make up 65% of the Hispanic 22 population in the United States, which is the second-largest in the world (U.S. Census, 2014). The Bay area has a large Mexican population according to the U.S. Census (2017a, 2017b). The selection of Veracruz was because of its diversity and dense population. This study did not include other generations of Mexican immigrants because they were presumed to have already assimilated into the U.S. culture. Given the demographic and geographical delimitation, the results from this study may not be generalized to other areas of the United States or Mexico or groups of different ethnic backgrounds. In this study, the preferences for paternalistic leadership and servant leadership style were compared between the four groups. The research was based on the hypothesis that U.S.-born Caucasians prefer a servant leadership style and Mexicans who prefer a paternalistic style (Doran & Littrell, 2013; Littrell & Cruz Barba, 2013). All other leadership styles were not included. Limitations The success of the study was dependent on obtaining enough participants within the defined geographical region to measure cultural values and leadership preferences accurately. My ability to remain objective during data analysis was also critical to the study. Several factors limited the study. The first factor was the need to gather data from participants in two different countries. Distributing and collecting the survey directly from participants living in Mexico was done remotely, and it was dependent on people having access to technology. The biases of the participants and the conditions under which they completed the survey were unknown. Additionally, the data collected was 23 cross-sectional and it represents the opinions of the participants at one moment in time. Conducting a longitudinal experimental study would help remedy this limitation. The second limitation was the pool of participants. Most of the participants in Mexico and some in the U.S. came from universities. The rest of the participants in the U.S. were from a single nonprofit organization and from the clients they serve. The education level of the participants could represent a confounding variable as there is no clear understanding of the effects of education on acculturation or leadership preferences. Future studies should consider recruiting participants from a variety of sources. Last, the potential for multiple interpretations of the many generations of immigrants could present a consistency problem. Participants did not identify themselves as members of any one generation; instead, they completed a demographic questionnaire as part of the survey. Based on the responses of the participants, I assigned them to one of the four groups. The survey questions explicitly focused on gathering information about the relationship between cultural values and leadership preferences. The values portion of the survey, however, was based on the perceived cultural values of Mexican Americans living in the United States (Knight et al., 2010), which are not necessarily the views of Mexicans living in Mexico. Significance of Study In this study, I addressed a gap in knowledge on cross-cultural leadership by examining the effects of acculturation on the leadership preferences of Mexican immigrants in the United States. Organizations operating within societies enriched by multiple cultures face a benefit–challenge duality of working with a diverse workforce. The uniqueness of the knowledge, information, and perspective that each team member 24 brings to an organization presents an opportunity for a benefit (Hofstede, 2001; Ros et al., 1999). The immigrant population in the United States has a significant influence on the leadership preferences and the workforce of the country. This research is significant to the advancement of theory and practice, and positive social change. Significance to Theory This study helps address the gap in knowledge about the relationships between the cultural values of immigrants and their leadership preferences. By focusing on the differences between Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians relating to workrelated cultural values and leadership preferences, this study contributes to the literature by expanding current knowledge of cross-cultural leadership beyond comparing nations and focusing on intranational differences. Findings indicate that there is a difference in leadership preferences between Mexicans, Mexican immigrants, and U.S.-born Caucasians and suggest that acculturation does not affect these preferences. Results from this study can contribute to the cross-cultural literature by improving the understanding of the relationship between cultural values and the preferred leadership styles of immigrants. This research contributes to acculturation literature by supporting the theory that second-generation Mexican immigrants develop a bicultural identity (Knight et al., 2010). Findings inform current research on dual cultural adaptation of second-generation Mexican immigrants. The results from this study suggest that further research should be conducted to determine if the same differences exist between other ethnic groups. Significance to Practice The differences in values and leadership preferences between their diverse groups of employees pose a challenge to management and their employees. Organizational 25 professionals can use the findings from this study to help them understand diversity from a new perspective. This study can inform managers on how to improve their leadership style by accounting for the preferences of their staff. One of the preferences highlighted by this study is the desire for supervisory support on matters related and no-related to work. Employees who feel the support of their supervisors are more likely to stay with the organization (Basuil, Manegold, & Casper, 2016). Human resources managers can use this study to help them develop leaders who embrace diversity by acknowledging the differences and similarities in work-related values and cultural values of the workforce. By focusing on the differences in values, organizations may not only attract the right talent but also develop them into effective leaders who can give the company a sustainable competitive advantage. Accounting for the expectations of the employees can potentially improve the leader member exchange which may lead to enhance productivity and retention. Significance to Social Change Findings from this study contribute to positive social change by educating existing and potential managers on the challenges they may face when managing a diverse population that includes Mexican immigrants. More importantly, the research raises the awareness that other immigrants may also retain their cultural values. Having a greater understanding of what employees expect from their supervisors can potentially enhance the relationship between the manager and the employees and improve work productivity, efficiency, and retention (Basuil et al., 2016; Lavy, Littman-Ovadia, & Boiman-Meshita, 2017). Diversity training for supervisors based on the cultural values and expectations of employees can foster respect for the individual and promote worth 26 and dignity. Supervisors who are different than their employees may gain a different perspective and may be able to learn how to better support their staff. Summary With this survey study, I attempted to investigate differences of work-related cultural values and preferred leadership styles among generations of Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. I tried to discover if a relationship exists between acculturation and leadership preferences. I developed research questions and hypotheses to help uncover any variances that may exist in work-related cultural values and leadership preferences according to the acculturation strategy that Mexican immigrants in the United States choose. In Chapter 2, I discuss the literature related to the problem statement, research questions, and hypotheses aforementioned. The literature review contains a synthesis of the principal works on paternalistic leadership and servant leadership, acculturation, cross-cultural leadership, and cross-cultural values. 27 Chapter 2: Literature Review The purpose of this survey-based quantitative comparative study was to investigate the effects of acculturation on the work-related cultural values and leadership style preferences among generations of Mexican immigrants and compare these findings with U.S.-born Caucasians. This chapter begins with an explanation of the search strategy I used to find appropriate literature for this study. I discuss the theories that I used to underpin the framework of this dissertation and how the models relate to the research questions of this study and how they can help to understand the findings of this study. Following is an in-depth examination of literature focusing on acculturation, work-related values, and leadership style preferences as they relate to Mexican immigrants in the United States across various generations. Although the primary purpose of the review was to identify a gap in the literature by analyzing recent scholarly work, I touch on some historical, but essential, elements of each construct. Last, I conclude the chapter describing how my study may contribute to the literature. Literature Search Strategy I used different search engines to find sources of peer-reviewed scholarly research relevant to this research study. Although the main focus was on scholarly publications from within the last 5 years, the search also included older literature containing seminal research. Google Scholar and Academic Search Complete were the primary search engines used to find appropriate research. I linked Walden University's library to Google Scholar, making Walden University the primary source of the material. I accessed publications not available through Walden University using Google Scholar 28 search engine. I also used other databases, such as Science Direct, ProQuest Central, and Crossref, with the intent to conduct a thorough search of available and relevant scholarly journals. In my queries, I used combinations of the following key terms: leadership, acculturation, immigrants, cross-cultural leadership, leadership preferences, Mexican acculturation, Mexican Leadership, servant leadership, familism, values, cultural values, and enculturation. I also referred to original publications by Hofstede (2001), House et al. (2004), Triandis (1994), Schwartz, (1992), Berry (1997), and Taras (2008) to develop an appropriate theoretical framework. It was difficult to find literature about the relationship between leadership preferences or styles and acculturation of immigrants; most of the articles I found were about expatriates. Venturing outside of the field of management and searching for material in the areas of psychology and sociology, I found some recent dissertations in the management field that addressed the topic of this research study. Searching through their reference sections helped me find relevant material. In one particular study, Taras (2008) referred to a comprehensive catalog of instruments to measure acculturation and culture that he developed for his dissertation but did not provide in the published work. I contacted Dr. Taras, and he emailed me the two catalogs he compiled and a copy of his original research. Theoretical Foundation The theory that guided this study is a combination of Berry's (1997) bidimensional model of acculturation, concepts of House et al.'s (2004) culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory (CLT), and Taras's (2008) individual work-related 29 cultural values model. The theoretical framework indicates that leadership preferences of immigrants will vary according to their cultural values that directly align with the acculturation strategy used in a given context. Bi-dimensional Model of Acculturation Berry's model of acculturation was based on the notion that acculturation is not linear and that immigrants do not have to forego their existing value system and cultural beliefs in exchange for those of the host country. Berry (1997) proposed that people choose an acculturation strategy based on the level of importance given to two issues: the need to maintain their cultural identity and characteristics and the degree of involvement they should have in other cultural groups. Berry proposed that considering these two issues at the same time, it produces four acculturation strategies: assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Berry also proposed that, based on situation variables and person variables, immigrants may choose to use more than one strategy. Situation variables include location, political climate, economic condition, societal attitudes, and size of an ethnic group represented in the host country, while person variables include experiences of discrimination, age at migration, generation, gender, educational level, cultural distance, time since immigration, and social support. Researchers have found Berry's model of acculturation useful in explaining observed patterns when assessing differences among generations of Mexican immigrants (Nieri & Bermudez-Parsai, 2014; Nieri et al., 2016) and differences in achievement among children of Mexican immigrants (Kim, Newhill, & Lopez, 2013). I used the dynamics of the acculturation process as described by the bidimensional framework in this study to understand variations in how Mexican immigrants develop values across 30 generations. When people first encounter a new culture, they rely on their current values and lay theories about how society functions. During this first meeting, immigrants use separation as the acculturation strategy (Kim et al., 2013). As time progresses, situational factors and personal factors change and affect the evaluation of the need for cultural maintenance and the need to interact with other cultures, guiding immigrants to choose different or multiple acculturation strategies. Mexican immigrants who live in neighborhoods with high a concentration of Mexicans or other Latinos may seek cultural maintenance while at home and surrounding areas more than while at work. This scenario would necessitate the use of two strategies and possibly two sets of values. The two sets of values could become salient under the right stimuli. I used the bidimensional theory to help me understand the unique experience children of immigrants go through of enculturating and acculturating simultaneously. Unlike first-generation immigrants, children of immigrants (second-generation immigrants) may encounter two sets of values; one set of values from family teachings and possibly a different set of values from society. The uniqueness of the situation is that the two sets of values could be polar opposites, and the set of values from family teachings could change over time as family members, mainly parents, may still be acculturating. Second-generation immigrants may develop as bicultural or multicultural and may switch back and forth between values as appropriate. Children of Mexican immigrants may automatically rely on U.S. values and deliberately decide to use Mexican values as needed, while their parents may automatically rely on Mexican values and choose to use U.S. values when needed (Nieri & Bermudez-Parsai, 2014). Secondgeneration immigrants may also find the opposition of the two sets of values too 31 conflicting to adopt either one, resulting in marginalization. The marginalization option is less likely, however, as it often requires external influences, such as forced acculturation and forced separation (segregation) (Berry, 1997). Individual Work-Related Cultural Values Model Taras (2008) first developed the individual work-related cultural values model for his doctoral dissertation. The nature of Taras's research required measurements of workrelated values at the individual level. There were existing popular and well-validated models developed using national data, such as Hofstede's (1980) value survey model and the GLOBE Survey by House et al. (2004). In other studies, the dimensions measured did not closely relate to the workplace, such as the framework by Maznevski, Gomez, DiStefano, Noorderhaven, and Wu (2002) and the Schwartz Value Survey (1994). Taras dismissed these models. To develop his model, Taras invited several experts in the field of cross-cultural studies to take a survey rating the relevance of several dimensions to culture and workplace. The analysis of the 28 responses revealed that only a few aspects relate significantly to culture and work: "gender egalitarianism, power distance, status by ascription-achievement, and universalism-particularism" (Taras, 2008, p. 72). Gender egalitarianism refers to the perception of equality between men and women with respect to abilities, roles, responsibilities, rights, and capabilities to perform equally well on most work-related duties, including people management. Power distance refers to the levels of acceptance and expectation of inequalities among individuals and the unequal distribution of power within an organization. Status attribution is the degree that status is credited to personal achievement as opposed to basing it on who the person 32 is, such as being wealthy, royalty, or an elder. Universalism refers to the belief that rules apply to everyone equally, regardless of circumstance, as opposed to particularism, which allows exceptions based on the person or the particulars of a situation. An internal reliability test conducted on all four constructs resulted in an unacceptably low value for universalism–particularism (0.57 as measured by Cronbach alpha), and he dropped the construct from the model (Taras, 2008). Acculturation at the value level does not occur at the same speed as acculturation at the artifact level (Taras et al., 2013). Although immigrants may adopt the local language and taste for cuisine, music, and fashion, their values and implicit theories may remain the same as those of their country of origin. Taras's (2008) model emphasizes that several factors moderate the speed, level, and type of acculturation. These include length of residence, age at migration, size and composition of immigrant network, the composition of local community, and frequency of interaction with locals, education level at migration, and education level obtained at the host country. Taras's model agrees with the framework of Berry's (1997) bidimensional model of acculturation. An Internet search for literature incorporating Taras's model resulted in works citing his research and findings, yet I did not find any publications citing the direct application of his model. Hofstede (2001) and Schwartz (1992) emphasized the importance of measuring cultural values at the individual level to compare intranational differences. Taras (2008) showed through an extensive analysis of existing acculturation frameworks and instruments that there are no models, other than his own, that account for individual differences in work-related cultural values. As aforementioned, popular models such as Hofstede's (1980) value survey model and the GLOBE Survey by House 33 et al. (2004); however, use similar constructs to compare differences and similarities of work-related cultural values at a national level. Hoftede's (2001) model has five dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, and longterm versus short-term orientation. The GLOBE expanded those dimensions to nine: performance orientation, assertiveness, future orientation, humane orientation, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance (House et al., 2004). The use of these dimensions to compare groups based on data from geographical regions segmented by similarities in cultural values is useful when the intent is to use national culture as a predictor (Steel & Taras, 2010). Comparing intranational differences based on the acculturation level of the members of the population requires measurements at the individual level. Taras's (2008) model served as a guide for measuring individual-level, workrelated values within the cultural dimensions of power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution of Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians. The purpose of this study was to identify how work-related cultural values and leadership style preferences among first-generation Mexican immigrants, second-generation Mexican immigrants, and their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts differ based on the acculturation level of the immigrants. Taras is the only scholar, to my knowledge, who has published research on the effects of acculturation on work-related values at the individual level. I adapted his model to encompass some of the traditional Mexican cultural values of religiosity, traditional gender roles, familism, and respect. 34 Culturally Endorsed Implicit Leadership Theory House et al. (2004) developed the culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory by broadening the concept of individual implicit leadership theories. ILTs represent cognitive structures or schemas, specifying traits and behaviors that followers expect from leaders (Epitropaki et al., 2013). People compare the behavior, characteristics, and personality of a person with the beliefs they hold about leaders to form an opinion and decide if they should accept such a person as a leader. House et al. theorized that cultural values shape the schemas by which employees recognize and accept leaders. It was unknown in the ILT literature if culture-specific leader expectations had equal value to universally held leader expectations within the schemas people hold; thus, they decided to integrate the two disciplines (House et al., 2004). According to CLT, societal and organizational culture influences ILTs. The influence of national culture suggests that similar leadership behaviors may have different acceptance levels by members of different cultures (Ruiz, Hamlin, & Martinez, 2014). People start forming schemas from an early age based on observations and family interactions. In countries with high power distance values, such as Mexico, parents educate children to accept the father as the ultimate authority in the household, to accept that his decisions are best for the family, and to obey his direction (Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian, & House, 2012). In consequence, adults in such countries are more accepting of autocratic leadership styles. CLT has six global leader dimensions based on 112 leader attributes and 21 leadership dimensions: charismatic/value-based leadership, team-oriented leadership, participative leadership, humane-oriented leadership, autonomous leadership, and self35 protective leadership (Dorfman et al., 2012). Charismatic leadership ties inspiration, motivation, and expected high-performance to a set of core values. Team-oriented leadership highlights team building and shared goal orientation. Participative leadership indicates the level of involvement of others in decision making by managers. Humaneoriented leadership is a combination of supportive and considerate leadership and compassion and generosity. Autonomous leadership reflects independent and individualistic attributes. Self-protective leadership focuses on the safety and security of the group and its members by enhancing status and saving face. Culturally endorsed implicit leadership theory can aid in understanding the differences in preferred leadership styles among generations of Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians. Although House et al. (2004) found paternalism to be strong in Mexico, CLT does not include a paternalistic leadership dimension, which, recent literature shows, is the leadership style Mexicans prefer (Brumley, 2014; Davila & Elvira, 2012; Ruiz et al., 2014). Two studies, in particular, have used CLT to investigate leadership preferences in Mexico, and their findings were in alignment with those of the GLOBE. Howell et al. (2007) used data from the GLOBE to analyze the culture and leadership preferences of Mexicans. Castaño et al. (2015) analyzed the data from the GLOBE and determined that leadership preferences and expectations vary considerably among Latin American countries. Although researchers found some universalistic leadership attributes, several characteristics were culturally contingent. As shown in these two studies, Mexicans have leadership style preferences that are unique among the Latin American cluster of countries. Although Latin American countries share, for the most part, a common language and similar colonial history, 36 Mexico has some unique characteristics that separate it from the rest of the group (Castaño et al., 2015). Similarly, Mexico is uniquely different from its neighbor, the United States. Cross-cultural research identifies Mexico as a collectivistic society and the United States an individualistic society. Hofstede (1980) indicated that Mexico has more similarities with Asian culture than with the United States. Ruby, Falk, Heine, Villa, and Silberstein (2012) demonstrated that cultural differences might exist even between seemingly similar collectivistic societies. It is important to recognize the impact of culture when comparing immigrants' leadership style preferences with those of the host country. In this study, I used the underpinnings of CLT to examine the leadership style preferences of Mexican immigrants with those of their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. Literature Review The literature review for the current study falls into three broad categories: acculturation, values, and leadership. The focus of the literature review was to investigate the relationship between acculturation, work-related values, and the preferences in leadership style of Mexican immigrants. The examination of the literature starts with an overview followed by a review of the acculturation process and the uniqueness of such a process for Mexican immigrants. Subsequently, an analysis of literature related to values shows how cultural values and personal values are interconnected and influence the behaviors in the work environment. Finally, a review of the literature on implicit leadership theories and cross-cultural leadership reveals how preferences for leadership styles vary across cultures and directly relate to values. 37 Overview The increase of cross-national migration around the world has been significant during the past few decades (Taras et al., 2013). According to reports from the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of immigrants in the United States alone has neared a million every year since 2000 (Jian, 2012; Taras et al., 2013). The Hispanic population in the U.S. grew by 1.2 million people from 2014 to 2015, accounting for nearly 50% of the total increase in population in the country. Even with the recent decline in Mexican immigrants entering the United States, Mexicans make up almost 65% of the Hispanic population (U.S. Census, 2016) and 28% of the United States' foreign-born population (Gonzalez-Barrera, 2015). As people migrate to a new country of residence, they begin their struggle to acculturate. They start integrating into society, building families, and seeking gainful employment. As a result, the number of foreign-born United States workers has increased. Population Census reports indicate that people born outside of the United States hold 15.6% of the United States' jobs (Jian, 2012). Researchers suggested that individuals who enter new cultural environments experience some degree of discomfort because of the cultural differences (Samnani, Boekhorst, & Harrison, 2012; Schwartz, 2014). These differences are clearly documented in large-scale research, such as Hofstede's (2001) exploration of cultural differences among 50 nations, House et al.'s (2004) comparison of cultural values and practices of 62 societies, and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner's (2012) study on the effects of culture on management across 60 countries. The relationship between acculturation and the work environment, however, has received very little attention (Taras et al., 2013). Most of the research has been in health sciences, marketing, and mass media, focusing on change at 38 the artifactual level and ignoring changes in value and behavior (Jian, 2012; Kunst, Thomsen, Sam, & Berry, 2015). Research on the acculturation experience as it relates to the workplace is limited. Existing studies center around the effects culture has on the teams being managed or on the style of existing managers, but the consequences of culture on leadership preferences are ignored. Culture Differences Culture is an essential yet complex element of society members of a defined group share, and it perpetuates through generations. Although some components of culture are readily observable, others are tacit and can only be determined through its practices. Scholars have been studying cultural differences across nations for decades. The interest varies across disciplines from political and attitudinal (Riemer, Shavitt, Koo, & Markus, 2014), to self-perception (Vignoles et al., 2016), to behavioral economics (Ahern, Daminelli, & Fracassi, 2015), to work-related (Taras et al., 2013). Given the nature of this study, I focused on cross-cultural literature related to the work environment and leadership, with particular emphasis on Mexican migrant workers. The first step to effectively comparing cultures is to conceptualize the term. Conceptualizing Culture From an anthropological standpoint, we can define culture as the shared observable characteristics of a society, such as clothing, cuisine, language, music, and rituals. Although these cultural practices are essential to differentiate one culture from another, they are only superficial and do not necessarily explain cultural behavior and beliefs, which are central to my research. From a psychological point of view, culture has definitions predominantly from two different perspectives: a shared system of values 39 (Hofstede, 2001) and a shared set of internalized conditions (Schwartz, 1999). Both views have essential elements that can contribute to my research. Hofstede (1980) popularized culture as a shared system of values. He defined culture as "the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another" (Hofstede, 2001, p. 9). This definition of culture can be depicted as an onion with rituals, heroes, and symbols layering around a nucleus of shared values. Symbols sit at the outermost layer and include language, gestures, objects, and pictures. Heroes lie just beneath symbols and include real, imaginary, living, or dead people who serve as role models. Last, just above the value system, are rituals. Rituals are public activities considered socially essential for the stability and the preservation of order within the community. Based on this perspective of culture; people from the same group share similar views on values, rituals, heroes, and symbols as other members, which differ from those of outsiders. Schwartz (2014), on the other hand, perceived culture "as the latent, normative value system, external to the individual, which underlies and justifies the functioning of societal institutions" (p. 6). According to Schwartz, culture is not directly observable; instead, it manifests through the rituals, symbols, beliefs, values, and practices of the members of society. According to this view, values are at the center of societal culture; they are not within the person. Values are part of the context in which people live, and they influence the way individuals think and behave. Through their policies and practices, the institutions of society promote, validate, or prevent societal values (Licht, Goldschmidt, & Schwartz, 2007). Members of the group internalize these values to 40 varying degrees, and they manifest differently, creating more considerable variation within a group than between groups (Schwartz, 2014) From a social development perspective, we can define culture as a set of lay theories developed from social and environmental interactions. Lay theories internalize as values, and they vary from person to person and change over time in relation to context. People adopt cultural schemas early in childhood, and they serve as guides to determine right from wrong (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Rossberger & Krause, 2014; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Regardless of the view, all culture definitions share three essential elements: group members share culture, culture is relatively stable, and culture develops over time (Hofstede, 2001; Taras, 2008). Comparing Cultures Although researchers have examined observable cultural differences across societies for centuries, it was not until after Hofstede (1980) published the findings of his IBM study in his book Culture Consequences that quantitative research of nonobservable differences flourished. Researchers primarily examine differences between cultures at a societal level by comparing the mean responses of individual members to opinion surveys about the degree of importance of values along societal dimensions (Hofstede, 1980, 1993, 2001; House et al., 2004; Schwartz, 1999; Taras, 2008). Cultural dimensions are, therefore, the quantified attributes of societies measured at the value level. Several researchers have defined their own set of dimensions and have developed their cultural models. The most popular dimensions are those Hofstede defined (2001; Taras, 2008). Based on findings from his IBM study, and aimed at examining the perceptions and 41 attitudes about work-related issues across 50 nations, Hofstede (1980, 2001) identified and defined four cultural dimensions: power distance, individualism or collectivism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance. He discovered a fifth dimension, short-and longterm orientation, in the answers to the Chinese Value Survey around 1985 (Hofstede, 2001). Recently, Beugelsdijk, Maseland, and Van Hoorn (2015) replicated Hofstede's work and determined that Hofstede's findings are stable over time. Since the publication of Hofstede's (1980) work, other scholars and researchers have made their contributions to literature through their own culture models and sets of dimensions. Building on Hofstede's (1980) work and implicit leadership theories, House et al. (2004) launched the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness project to examine the effects of culture on leadership and organizational effectiveness across 62 societies. House et al. (2004) defined nine cultural dimensions. Six of these stemmed from Hofstede's (1980) work: power distance, institutional collectivism, ingroup collectivism, assertiveness, gender egalitarianism, and uncertainty avoidance. Two came from Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's (House et al., 2004) dimensions: future orientation derived from the past, present, and future orientation dimension; and humane orientation derived from the human nature as good versus bad dimension. Last, performance orientation derives from the need for achievement work by McClellans (House et al., 2004). Schwartz (1992) defined his dimensions based on the analysis of surveys conducted in 25 countries about individual preferences of 56 values. Schwartz (1992) identified two bi-polar dimensions: openness to change versus conservation, and selfenhancement versus self-transcendence. The two dimensions divide further into ten 42 motivational value types organized along a circular continuum (Consiglio, Cenciotti, Borgogni, Alessandri, & Schwartz, 2016). The arrangement of the values indicates the relationship to each other; compatible values are closer to each other, and conflicting values are further apart. The ten value types are universalism, self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition, and benevolence. The works of Hofstede (1980, 1993, 2001), House et al. (2004), and Schwartz (1992, 1999) indicated that culture exerts significant influence on people's behavior, attitudes, social relations, and perceptions and expectations of self and others. Although their dimensions are not the only ones in the literature (i.e., Inglehart, Basáñez, DíezMedrano, Halman, & Luijkx, 2004; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012), theirs have been most significant in cross-cultural research. Notably, Hofstede's (1980, 2001) dimensions have had the most influence in the literature (Taras, 2008) progressing crosscultural research across several disciplines. Despite the significant differences reported in large-scale cross-cultural research, the effect size of the findings is challenged in recent articles. Saucier et al. (2015) conducted a global study involving 8,883 individuals across 33 countries to determine the effect size of 50 commonly tested variables in cross-cultural research. They found religiousness, hierarchical family values, ethnonationalism, and family-oriented collectivism to have the largest differences across cultures, suggesting that cross-cultural comparative researchers should focus on behaviors and values around family, religion, and ethnic nationalism. Differences in the scores along cultural dimensions show that culture influences people's perceptions of management and preferences for leadership styles (Castaño et al., 43 2015; Dickson, Castaño, Magomaeva, & Den Hartog, 2012; Hofstede, 1980, 1993, 2001; House et al., 2004; Ruiz et al., 2014; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012). Culture also influences perception and understanding of the self and the world (Vignoles et al., 2016), and how people relate to and communicate with one another (Inglehart et al., 2004; Jack, Caldara, & Schyns, 2012; Jack & Schyns, 2015). Given that the purpose of this study was to identify differences in work-related cultural values and leadership style preferences between Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts, I was interested in work-related cultural differences between the United States and Mexico that may affect leadership style preferences. Differences between Mexico and the United States Cultural differences exist not only across distant countries but also between bordering countries and regionally, based on the cultural factors of the area and situational context. Research shows that Mexico is significantly dissimilar to other Latin American nations (Castaño et al., 2015; Minkov & Hofstede, 2012) and the United States (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004), even though they border each other. In comparing the results between Mexico and the United States along the Hofstedean dimensions, Mexico scored higher than the United States in power distance and collectivity, lower than the United States in uncertainty avoidance, and about equal in masculinity. The GLOBE project had similar results (House et al., 2004). Mexico scored higher than the United States in in-group collectivism, institutional collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance. It scored lower in the gender egalitarianism, humane orientation, and assertiveness dimensions. Both countries scored equally in power distance. 44 It is important to note that although there are some apparent different results between the scores on some of the similar dimensions of Hofstede (1980) and the GLOBE (House et al., 2004), in reality, these dimensions measure different aspects. For example, Hofstede's (1980) survey measures the stress level of society toward uncertainty, and the GLOBE's (House et al., 2004) survey measures two distinct aspects: values (should be) and practice (as is; Venaik & Brewer, 2010). The results from these studies revealed that Mexican cultural values are significantly different from those of the United States. Mexicans are highly collective and have high in-group identification, which is a result of the high value placed on relationships and respect toward others. In contrast, the United States is more individualistic, indicating the need for personal achievement, independence, and material success. Mexicans expect and accept inequalities in power distribution and tolerate authoritarian-style leadership while being dependent on those with power. In the United States, equality is important, employees are involved in the decision-making process, and leaders empower subordinates to be independent. Mexicans, in contrast, seem to take each day as it comes, to be very relaxed at taking risks without much thought about tomorrow, and to have a weak work ethic, making leisure time more valuable. In the United States, leisure time is less critical, risks are calculated, and planning is essential. Last, Mexicans are willing to accept gender inequalities if men and women take on traditional roles, while in the United States, equality between the sexes is professed. Mexican Cultural Values. In addition to the universal values already discussed, typical Mexican values include religiosity (Espinosa-Hernández et al., 2015; Hoffman, Marsiglia, & Ayers, 2015), traditional gender roles (machismo, caballerismo, and 45 marianismo), respect, and familism (Morgan Consoli & Llamas, 2013). Religiosity is the belief in and worship of a greater power. Respect is showing deference toward authority figures through behaviors such as obedience, agreeableness, and self-control. Familism is the belief that family is first above all else, including self. Familism has six essential components 1) family obligation, 2) family is the main source of emotional support, 3) connections among family members are highly valued, 4) family is taken into account for important decision making, 5) uphold family honor through self-control, and 6) forego personal preferences for the good of the family (Campos et al., 2014). Traditional gender roles are clearly defined values for male and female. Machismo and caballerismo are the expected behaviors for men and boys, and marianismo are the expected behaviors for girls and women (Piña-Watson, LorenzoBlanco, Dornhecker, Martinez, & Nagoshi, 2016). Machismo represents the negative aspects of Mexican masculinity – aggressive, dominant, and chauvinistic – and caballerismo represents the positive aspects – gallant, nurturing, socially responsible, and emotionally connected to family (Ojeda, & Piña-Watson, 2014; Piña-Watson et al., 2016). Although machismo and caballerismo are opposites in value, they are not mutually exclusive (Ojeda & Piña-Watson, 2014). U.S. Cultural Values. Individualism and achievement define the United States culture. Large-scale research has identified the United States to have low power distance, suggesting an egalitarian society where social power and importance is somewhat equal among all members (Ahern et al., 2015). In addition to being egalitarian and highly individualistic, the United States culture is very concerned with the wellbeing of others in the same group and for humanity in general (Doran & Littrell, 2013). Typically, U.S. 46 values are giving importance to achieving material success, personal success, gaining independence, and seeking to competitively differentiate from one another (Morgan Consoli et al., 2016). Although these findings are significant and indicate the existence of value and cultural differences between the United States and Mexico, they are useful for global management and preparing managers for international assignments. These findings do not necessarily reflect within-country cultural differences between Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. When viewing culture as an external factor, the internalized aspects of culture become susceptible to change as the environment changes (Schwartz, 2014). The shifts in the environment for Mexican immigrants would necessitate an eventual adjustment or modification to their values to cope with the demands of the new culture. Internalization of cultural values, however, varies across individuals because of differences in personality and context. We can infer that variability of cultural values exists among Mexican immigrants and between them and other people in the United States because of their exposure to different cultural contexts. Within Country Variability Although most cross-cultural studies focus on the differences that exist between nations and the impact of these differences in various aspects of life and the workplace, researchers are starting to examine intranational differences. A recent study by de Mooij and Beniflah (2016) examined cross-cultural differences between ethnic groups of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Chinese, African, and European background in the United States using Hofstede's (2001) cultural dimensions. De Mooij et al. did not find any significant differences in cultural values among the measured groups. While the 47 researchers were cautious about replicating Hofstede's (2001) process by matching samples as suggested, they failed to pay attention to Hofstede and Minkov's (2013) warning against using published data for comparison. Additionally, Mooij et al. used an etic approach, which is meant to compare cultures along a common set of dimensions (Hofstede, Garibaldi de Hilal, Malvezzi, Tanure, & Vinken, 2010; Taras, 2008), and failed to account for the commonality (emic) of the U.S. context and the acculturation level of the participants. Although several studies relied on the cultural dimensions of Hofstede (2001) and the GLOBE (House et al., 2004) to examine intranational differences, some researchers advised against this practice. Based on a meta-analysis of cross-cultural literature, Steel and Taras (2010) suggested that culture and country do not necessarily have a direct correlation, as there is greater variability within countries than across them. They concluded that researchers should not make cultural comparisons based on geographical demarcations but based on demographic and environmental characteristics that have a stronger link to cultural dimensions. Similarly, Fischer and Schwartz (2011) demonstrated that more significant variability exists within a country than between countries. Although they found that culture does indeed affect some values, such as honoring parents, members of a nation do not share most values equally. Researchers attributed this variability to the context surrounding the internalization of values by individuals. Individual-Level Cultural Values Although individual-level values are directly linked to culture by virtue of the definition of culture or causal connection (Ng, Woo, Tay, & Foster, 2016), not all values 48 are cultural in nature. Many values develop from experience, personality, and the internalized meaning of situations and the environment. According to the social development theory, people learn from their immediate surroundings, starting with family at the center and moving outwards to learning and affirming knowledge through social and institutional interactions (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). The saliency of the influence a situation or process has on a person depends on the level of participation of the individual (Ashiabi & O'Neal, 2015). This notion implies that individuals who grow up within a culture, and who actively participate in cultural activities interacting with other members of the same culture, absorb lay theories particular to that culture, and the norms and beliefs of that culture dictate their behavior and understanding of the world. The notion also suggests that people from different societies behave, expect others to act, relate to one another, and respond to their environment differently in accordance with their own beliefs and values. Individual-level values are schemas that people adopt early in childhood from exposure to culture and through socialization and serve as a guide to determining right from wrong (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Rossberger & Krause, 2014; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Individual-Level, Work-Related Cultural Values Individual-level, work-related cultural values are values that reflect internalized culture and influence behavior in the workplace. These work-related values develop according to prior experiences, not necessarily work-related, and adapt to gain an understanding of the work environment and work-related activities (Schwartz, 2014; Zolfaghari et al., 2016). Immigrants face the challenge that the values they carry may be very different from those that others in the workplace hold. For example, Mexicans are 49 the least acculturated group of immigrants along the southern regions of the United States (Lopez, 2013; May et al., 2014). Because cultures vary widely between the United States and Mexico, Mexican immigrants are bound to have different work-related values than those of their U.S.-born counterparts. These differences may also exist for children of immigrants who grow up with influences from Mexican culture. An examination of literature revealed that several researchers emphasized the importance of the relationship between cultural values and the workplace (Consiglio et al., 2016; Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004; Jian, 2012; Schwartz, 2014). In this review, it was also revealed that the immigrant workforce is a significant contributor to diversity in the workplace and is a competitive advantage (Weaver, 2014; Zikic, 2015). Although differences in cultural values are barriers for Latinos to adjusting to the work culture of the United States (Eggerth, DeLaney, Flynn, & Jacobson, 2012; Flynn, 2014; KanaguiMuñoz, Garriott, Flores, Cho, & Groves, 2012), most of these studies are qualitative and do not explicitly compare cultural differences between Mexicans and their U.S. counterparts. The few studies I identified with quantitative approaches to comparing the culture of Mexican immigrants and U.S. culture as it relates to the workplace used the Hofstedean values system, which is not appropriate for this type of comparison (Hofstede, 2001). Additionally, these studies grouped Mexicans with other Latinos (Guerrero & Posthuma, 2014) and ignore acculturation and contextual differences, which can have a significant influence over results (Schwartz et al., 2014). As noted previously, societal-level culture is not appropriate for comparing intranational differences based on the acculturation level of the members of the population. These measurements are more relevant at the individual level. Some 50 researchers explored the individual-level values in the workplace (Consiglio et al., 2016; Krumm, Grube, & Hertel, 2013; Schwartz, 1999). Although most of the studies used Schwartz's (1992) theory of basic values, which is applicable across cultures, the values examined have only been remotely linked to the workplace (Taras, 2008), and the researchers failed to account for acculturation. Additionally, some of the value types, such hedonism, included in Schwartz's (1992) theory are not necessarily culture driven. I found only one study that investigated the relationship between immigrant cultural values at the individual level, work culture, and acculturation. Taras's (2008) IWoRC model measured individual-level values along cultural dimensions that have strong relevance to the workplace. The dimensions of Taras's model have strong similarities to those found in popular cross-cultural research. Power distance is included among the dimensions Hofstede (1980) and the GLOBE (House et al., 2004) defined. Mexico scored 81on the power distance index in Hofstede's study, and the United States scored 40. These results are consistent with the results from the GLOBE in which Mexico had a score of 5.22 on power distance practice (as is) and 2.85 on power distance values (should be), while the United States scored 4.88 and 2.85, respectively. The differences in scores between Mexico and the United States show that Mexican people have a higher tolerance for power distance. Results from the GLOBE project indicate that Mexico and the United States seem to desire less power distance. The GLOBE researchers (House et al., 2004) directly explored gender egalitarianism. Mexico scored 3.64 in gender egalitarianism practices and 4.73 in values. The United States scored 3.34 in practices and 5.06 in values. These scores indicate that, although Mexico is traditionally high in machismo (Morgan Consoli & Llamas, 2013), 51 the United States has greater male domination. The societies in both countries, however, desire greater gender equality. Status by ascription–achievement derives from the dimensions of Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2012). The dimension is scored based on the level of disagreement with two statements: "The most important thing in life is to think and act in the ways that best suit the way you really are, even if you do not get things done" and "The respect a person gets is highly dependent on the person's family background" (pp. 128 & 129). Mexico scored 31 on the first and 81 on the second, indicating that Mexico is an ascriptive society yet respects people based on achievement. In contrast, the United States scored 75 on the first statement and 87 on the second, indicating that the United States places status on people based on achievement and is a culture that believes in getting things done even through self-sacrifice. Culture and Leadership In general, cross-cultural research around leadership has focused on the effectiveness of leadership styles within a culture and comparing leadership styles across countries. Cross-cultural researchers demonstrated that the meaning of leadership and the effectiveness of styles vary across countries (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004; Steers et al., 2012). Because of the differences in the understanding of leadership across the world, researchers have not clearly determined that culture influences leadership (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012). Culture significantly influences preferences for leadership attributes, however (House et al., 2004). 52 Leadership Preferences People develop leadership preferences based on their conceptualization of the perfect leader. One's vision of the ideal leader depends on information gathered throughout life. According to social developmental theory, individuals learn from one another through observation and socialization (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). People learn leadership behaviors by observing their parents, teachers, public figures, and social figures, such as actors and entertainers (Harms & Spain, 2016). The stories people of influence tell, or the stories passed on from one generation to the next, help impart knowledge and develop mental models about ideal leadership (Allison & Goethals, 2014; Campbell, 2013). These mental leadership models, or implicit leadership theories, represent cognitive structures or schemas specifying traits and behaviors that followers expect from leaders (Epitropaki et al., 2013). Implicit leadership theories begin to form during early childhood and evolve through socialization and exposure to varying contexts, reaching full construct by adolescence (Frost, 2016). Starting at home, people gain exposure to different forms of leadership. Each parent has a different way to guide and educate their children, and children learn the style of their parents and begin to develop an idea of what is effective and what is not. Parental modeling helps develop leadership in adolescents (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, & McKee, 2014). As people venture out in the world, social institutions either solidify their beliefs or provide a different aspect of leadership. Teachers, police officers, other parents, and relatives represent various models for the observer. The observations become knowledge, and ILTs develop. We use ILTs to 53 compare the behavior, traits, and personality of a person with the beliefs held about leaders to form an opinion about such person and guide social interactions. Leadership preferences vary in response to context and the characteristics of the perceiver (Shondrick & Lord, 2010). Characteristics such as religious beliefs (Oliveira, 2016), cultural background (House et al., 2004), and self-perception (Ehrhart, 2012) affect ILTs. People from different cultures hold different values that influence their perception of a leader's effectiveness (Hofstede, 1993). For example, low power distance cultures tend to prefer leaders who consult subordinates about decisions; in contrast, high power distance cultures tend to prefer leaders who tell employees what to do (Hofstede, 2001). Similar contrasting leadership preferences occur with other societal values. What happens when someone from a high-power distance culture migrates to a low power distance society? Shondrick and Lord (2010) suggested that as contextual changes occur, people modify their ILTs and adjust their leadership preferences. Although ILTs are dynamic and adaptable, the changes are slow and take time (Epitropaki et al., 2013). As part of the acculturation process, which I discussed later in this paper, people make comparisons and decisions about the acceptability of new values and schemas before they adopt them or allow themselves to change the current ones. This elaborate process suggests that immigrants may take a long time to change their ILTs. Based on the stability of ILTs, first-generation immigrants are likely to have schemas consistent with those of their country of origin. Conversely, second-generation immigrants, those born in the host country to firstgeneration immigrants, may develop different leadership schemas, as they have exposure to different contexts than their parents. Based on prior cross-cultural research in 54 acculturation (Taras et al., 2013), age at migration, the length of residency, cultural environment, and engagement in cultural activities can affect the formation of ILTs and preferences for leadership style. Children of immigrants observe their parents' cultural values and leadership styles, which may differ from the preferred leadership styles of the people in the host country. Then, children gain exposure to different styles as they start to engage with society. Preferred Leadership Style of Mexico. Most research on Mexican leadership styles and preferences derives from universal values and fails to account for the effect of traditional Mexican values. Based on the findings from global studies, Mexicans find respect, collectivism, status attribution, and power distance to be important elements of leadership and Mexicans would benefit from and exhibit a paternalistic style of leadership with non-participative and autocratic behaviors (Hofstede, 1980; House et al., 2004; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012). Although these findings were confirmed in recent research (Castaño et al., 2015), country-specific studies had different results. Studies conducted solely with the purpose of identifying the most effective leadership style used in Mexico indicated that Mexicans prefer a democratic over autocratic leadership style (Martínez Méndez, Muñoz, Serafín, Muñoz, & Monserrat, 2013; Michaud et al., 2019; Ruiz & Hamlin, 2018; Ruiz, Wang, & Hamlin, 2013). This finding contradicts Hofstede's (2001) and the GLOBE (House et al., 2004) views. Specifically, Hofstede indicated that employees in high power distance countries prefer directions, an autocratic, father-like supervisor, and close supervision. Similarly, the GLOBE study showed that Mexicans have a higher tolerance for non-participatory and authoritarian approaches to leadership. Ruiz et al. suggested that while paternalism 55 (father-like figure) is the prevailing style of leadership in Mexico, leaders include subordinates in decision making, suggesting a more democratic approach. Similarly, Martínez Méndez et al. (2013) indicated that effective leadership in Mexico is democratic as Mexican managers delegate authority, involve subordinates in decision making, and support the subordinates. As shown in the results of the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004), aspects not typically measured in cross-cultural studies drive preferences in leadership style in Mexico. For instance, Howell et al. (2007) found that Mexicans do not exhibit the carefree or passive attitude that many typically associate with Mexicans. Mexico's history has a strong influence on traditionalism, power distance, and assertiveness. The importance of family (familism) and respect directly affect the supervisor-subordinate relationship at work. House et al. (2004), found that supportive leadership behaviors in Mexico positively affect job performance. Littrell and Cruz Barba (2013) found managers in Mexico to be paternalistic and democratic. In paternalistic leadership, leaders adopt the role of a parent and guide, care for, nurture, and protect their employees as a father would protect his children (Öner, 2012). Littrell et al. indicated that Mexicans prefer managers who are democratic, fair, approachable, and considerate. Employees expect managers to take care of them, be supportive, promote growth and development, and lend a hand, as needed. Mexicans desire managers who express understanding and sensitivity to family needs, help with problem-solving, and make special work arrangements to assist employees in times of need. 56 Leadership in the United States. Other than comparative and cross-cultural studies, I could not find any literature that clearly identified the preferred leadership style used in the United States. Most leadership theories are developed and researched within the confines of the United States and later tested for universalism (House et al., 2004). Based on cross-cultural studies, the United States is individualistic and egalitarian. The leadership style in the United States is highly participative, visionary, and transformational, exhibiting high-performance and high-maintenance behaviors (House et al., 2004). Doran and Littrell (2013) found the United States population to have high individual self-direction while being concerned about the welfare of society as a whole. In the GLOBE Study (House et al., 2004), the United States scored high on the leadership dimensions of charismatic/value-based (6.12), team-oriented (5.80), participative (5.93), and humane oriented (5.21). These findings along with U.S. typical values, giving importance to achieving material success, personal success, gaining independence (Morgan Consoli et al., 2016), and being concerned with the well-being of others (Doran & Littrell, 2013), suggest that Americans prefer a servant leadership style. Power distance and uncertainty avoidance have a negative relationship to dimensions of servant leadership, whereas performance orientation has shown a positive one (Mittal & Dorfman 2012). Servant leaders help followers realize material success through the accomplishment of individual and organizational goals and empower followers to be independent and achieve (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Gillet, Cartwright, and Van Vugt (2011) found that the self-sacrificing behavior of servant leaders facilitated greater group success and allowed followers to earn more income than the leaders. Servant leaders believe they have the responsibility to 57 ensure the mental well-being of their subordinates and create an environment that fosters personal development (Öner, 2012). Greenleaf (1977) coined the seemingly selfcontradicting term "servant leadership" based on the premise that servant leaders have the desire to serve first. Servant leaders prioritize the needs of others ahead of their own, helping followers flourish and succeed through empowerment, development, and feedback and by providing resources and creating an environment in which people can grow (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Mittal & Dorfman, 2012; Öner, 2012). Several aspects of servant leadership overlap dimensions of other leadership styles, such as transformational, charismatic, ethical, authentic, and spiritual (Sun, 2013). Mexicans in the United States Mexicans have been the largest source of immigrants to the United States since migration officially started in 1846 (Gutiérrez, 2017). Mexican immigrants make up nearly 65% of the Hispanic population (U.S. Census, 2016) and 28% of the United States' foreign-born population (Gonzalez-Barrera, 2015). Mexicans have been migrating to and living in the United States long before the United States was a country. The region from the states of California to Florida in the United States along the borders with the states of Tamaulipas to Baja California in Mexico is known as "Greater Mexico" because it once belonged to Mexico and Mexican culture and migration continue to influence the area (Foley, 2014; Weber, 2015). According to the U.S. Census (2016), 54.5% of the Hispanic population of the United States lives in California, Florida, and Texas. Mexicans have been living in cities like San Francisco, California; Los Angeles, California; Santa Fe, New Mexico; El Paso, Texas; and San Antonio, Texas since their foundation and long before English speakers arrived (Foley, 2014). Although these cities 58 have been under U.S. domain for more than 200 years, Mexicans are the least acculturated group of immigrants along the southern regions of the United States (Lopez, 2013). There is a negative perception of Mexicans in the United States. Many often degrade Mexicans, assuming they present potential damage to the United States (Foley, 2014; Kim et al., 2013; Overmyer-Velázquez, 2013). The prosecution and discrimination, alongside most social institutions which were founded according to U.S. values (Greenfield & Quiroz, 2013; May et al., 2014), has halted the acculturation process (Lopez, 2013). Mexicans in the United States revert to and maintain their cultural identities and cultural values (Foley, 2014; Kim et al., 2013). Morgan Consoli and Llamas (2013) showed that Mexicans rely on their values to help them thrive. Unlike many other immigrants, Mexicans migrate to the United States with the intent to secure employment, as wages are far higher in the United States than in Mexico (Foley, 2014). Most Mexican immigrants classify as unskilled workers (Gutiérrez, 2017). Mexican immigrants reach lower education levels than U.S.-born Caucasians and are less likely to graduate with an advanced degree from a college (Kim et al., 2013; Morgan Consoli & Llamas, 2013). Because of these differences, Mexicans tend to work in labor-intensive industries. According to Gutiérrez (2017), Mexicans often gain employment in service industries, construction, agriculture, mining, and railroad construction. Acculturation Acculturation is the process by which members of one culture modify their values, beliefs, and practices in response to direct contact and interactions with members of another culture (Berry, 1980; Keskin, 2013; Taras et al., 2013). Researchers originally 59 defined and studied acculturation as a unidimensional process placing ethnic and mainstream cultures on opposite ends of a continuum, calling for the abandonment of the elements of one culture to gain the elements of the other (Gordon, 1964; Taras, 2008). Although refining the model removed the confinement of the continuum and allowed acculturation to continue beyond its extremes (Taras, 2008), the model cannot distinguish the various types of bicultural and multicultural individuals (Vuong, & Napier, 2015). The model ignores the complexities of the human experience such as values, attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors (Gupta, Leong, Valentine, & Canada, 2015), and situational and social factors such as age at migration, size and composition of network, composition and attitudes of the local community, political climate, frequency of interaction with locals, and education (Berry, 1997; Taras et al., 2013). Furthermore, this model ignores the conflict that immigrants face when confronted with the cultural differences highlighted by their cross-cultural encounter. The initial contact between the members of two cultures results in culture shock and acculturative stress and leads to disillusion (Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 2014; Triandis, 1994). People face the reality of their cultural differences in acceptable behaviors, forms of interactions, cuisine, music, values, rituals, and clothing style, to name a few. Eventually, people must cope with the struggle between adapting to a new culture and maintaining their ethnic culture (Berry, 1997; Schwartz, 2014; Taras et al., 2013). The acculturation process is complex, and individuals must learn to live among those of a different culture (Triandis, 1994). People use their existing knowledge and lay theories as a reference to try to understand their new environment and the behavior of others. The decision process requires people to consider both alternatives at the same 60 time and adopt the best strategy for their situation, as they understand it. There are four possible acculturation strategies: assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization (Berry, 1997; Nieri et al., 2016). According to Berry (1997), assimilation is the strategy by which individuals place greater importance on being involved in other cultural groups than maintaining their own cultural identity and characteristics. Immigrants change their behavior and abandon their culture to adopt the dominant culture (Kuo, 2014). Under the separation strategy, the individual's desire to maintain their own cultural identity, and traits is vital and the involvement in different cultural groups is unimportant. When a person has an equal desire to preserve their cultural identity and characteristics and to involve themselves in other cultural groups, integration occurs. With marginalization as a strategy, there is a lack of interest or possibility of cultural maintenance and the lack of interest or likelihood to be involved in other cultural groups. These acculturation types have their foundations in the freedom of choice by non-dominant groups and their members. When acculturation is forced, or a dominant group limits the choices, the terminology of the framework changes (Berry, 1997). Separation becomes segregation when the dominating group imposes the acculturation strategy, and forced assimilation creates a "pressure cooker" (Berry, 1997, p10) effect that, in combination with segregation, may lead individuals to marginalization. Factors Related to Acculturation A review of the literature indicated the requirement of specific factors for the success of acculturation. Integration may only be successful when the dominant group is willing to accept and is able to adapt to more adequately meet the needs of the various 61 groups living within the society, while the non-dominant group must be willing to adopt the core values of the dominant culture (Berry, 1997; Hofstede, 2001; Horenczky, Jasinkaja-Lahti, Sam, & Vedder, 2013; Triandis, 1994; Ward & Geeraet, 2016). Both groups must accept that they are culturally different and must be willing to live under such understanding (Berry, 1997; May et al., 2014). Several situational factors influence acculturation. Among those factors are location, political climate, economic situation, societal attitudes, and size of the ethnic group represented in the host country (Berry, 1997; Hofstede, 2001; Lopez, 2013; Taras et al., 2013; Triandis, 1994). Personal factors also moderate acculturation and guide the selection of a strategy. These factors include experiences of discrimination, age at migration, generation, gender, educational level, cultural distance, time since immigration, and social support (Hofstede, 2001; Lopez, 2013; Portes & Rumbaut, 2005; Schwartz, 2014; Taras et al., 2013). Depending on the factors that immigrants face, they may choose one or multiple acculturation strategies. A person may seek greater cultural maintenance when surrounded by family than when at work or in a public environment (Berry, 1997). Taras et al. (2013) demonstrated that environmental factors could accelerate, decelerate, or reverse acculturation. The researchers showed that although the length of residency positively affects acculturation, assimilation takes more than 20 years to complete and depends on several other factors. People who migrated at a young age acculturated faster than those who were older because factors that existed prior to migration, such as personality, gender, and socioeconomic status, affect the initial process (Kim et al., 2013). The size of their representative network and the contact frequency with locals, however, moderated acculturation. Taras et al. found that the 62 network composition of immigrants significantly contributes to acculturation. Specifically, they determined that immigrant networks composed of less than 15% of locals negatively affect the acculturation process to the point of reversal. The more constant contact a person has with those of the dominant culture, the faster they acculturate. This effect, however, was not necessarily true for immigrants from countries widely represented locally, such as Mexico. Taras et al. indicated that people from highly represented groups acculturate at a lower rate than those from underrepresented groups. Researchers discovered supporting evidence of the effects of the social environment on acculturation using Mexican-American samples. In his dissertation, Lopez (2013) examined the factors that affect the level of acculturation of Mexican immigrants in the Southwest of the United States. He analyzed secondary data from a longitudinal study by Portes and Rumbaut (2001, 2005) on immigrants in the southern regions of Florida and California. Portes and Rumbaut (2001) found Mexicans to have the lowest levels of acculturation of the groups examined. Lopez found that the socioeconomic climate and stereotypical views about Mexicans contributed to the low levels of acculturation. They determined that racial discrimination, family cohesion, safety needs, and needs of belonging affected acculturation. These findings accentuate the need to have the proper environment, social support, and attitude toward immigrants to foment assimilation or integration. Lopez, however, did not account for the size of the Mexican community in the areas surveyed. According to the U.S. Census (2016), 54.5% of the Hispanic population in the United States lives in California, Florida, and Texas. When people mature in an environment rich in a particular culture, they embrace such culture (Fitzsimmons, 2013). Unfortunately, Lopez used the domain of English language 63 to evaluate acculturation levels, and this measurement of acculturation does not cause changes in behavior, self-identification, or values (Schwartz et al., 2014). Work-related Acculturation Many researchers have studied acculturation, yet only a few of them have directly examined the effects of acculturation on the workplace. Most of their studies were on the psychological adjustment of expatriates and the leadership styles required for success during a foreign assignment. Studies centered on immigrants tend to gauge acculturation by measuring language skills, consumption of local food, and the adaptation of clothing style. Although the domain of language can predict acculturation at the artifact level, it shows no links to modification in behavior at the workplace (Taras et al., 2013). Similarly, culinary preference and apparel choices are artifactual, and changes may relate to the availability of products within the area where immigrants live or work and are not necessarily a choice. Furthermore, research provides no direct link between artifactuallevel acculturation and work behaviors or values. Conclusion The review of the cross-cultural literature revealed that leadership preferences vary from country to country and that the meaning of leadership is rooted in and changes according to the culture where it is used (Hofstede, 1993; Steers et al., 2012). Researchers often define culture as a complex system that affects behavior through values adopted according to interactions with the environment (Zolfaghari et al., 2016). The differences in cultural values are mostly described and measured at a societal level based on dimensions of presumed shared values (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2001; Triandis, 1994), failing to account for the intranational cultural diversity and the dynamics of the 64 acculturation process (Berry, 1997). Similarly, leadership studies are mostly limited to cross-cultural comparisons of Western-based leadership theories, and the examination and comparison of effective leadership style based on cultural dimensions. Researchers found that Mexican leadership is different from that previously indicated in large-scale cross-cultural studies. Mexican leadership preferences are deeply rooted in tradition, and they differ from the United States and other Latino groups. Mexicans prefer a paternalistic leadership style with democratic behaviors (Littrell & Cruz Barba, 2013; Martínez Méndez et al., 2013; Ruiz et al., 2013), whereas U.S.-born Caucasians exhibit and prefer a servant leadership style. Although this new information helps international organizations and expatriates, it does not necessarily benefit organizations with a very culturally diverse population. Based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Current Population Survey, the number of immigrants in the United States in 2014 was 59 million (Camarota, 2015). According to the U.S. Census (2014), the United States has the second-largest Hispanic population in the world. The immigrant population in the United States is mainly composed of Latinos, and 65% of them are of Mexican descent (U.S. Census, 2016). Although Mexican immigration to the United States officially started in 1846 (Gutiérrez, 2017), the Bracero Act from 1942 led to an influx of Mexican immigrants into the United States for the past 74 years by enhancing the labor relations between the United States and Mexico (Durand, Massey, & Pren, 2016; Massey, Durand, & Pren, 2015). With a large population of Mexicans living in the United States, particularly along the southern regions of the country, it is important to understand their preferences in 65 leadership style and how their cultural background might influence them. The literature revealed that it may take three generations for immigrants to acculturate entirely to a new country (Rumbaut, 2015) as immigrants tend to hold on to the culture from their country of origin and pass it on to their descendants (Calderón-Tena, Knight, & Carlo, 2011; Wong-Mingli et al., 2014). The acculturation level of Mexican immigrants, as typically measured with language and adoption of other artifacts (Taras et al., 2013), may not indicate their preferences in leadership style. Researchers revealed that Mexicans have a harder time acculturating than other immigrants along the southern United States (Lopez, 2013). Although the reason for low acculturation levels is beyond the scope of this research, it is a crucial factor to consider. Although parental modeling during childhood and adolescence influences ILTs (Day et al., 2014; Frost, 2016), leadership preferences develop based on social, cultural, and environmental factors (Allison & Goethals, 2014; Campbell, 2013). Lack of research in intranational differences has left a gap in the literature regarding differences in values and preferences in leadership style among firstand second-generation immigrants and the rest of the population in the host country. The particular problem identified is that U.S.-born Caucasian managers may not understand the differences between their leadership style and the preferences for leadership style of Mexican immigrants which may be reflective of Mexican values and may vary depending on generation, length of residence, age at migration, and environmental factors. Given the motivational factors for Mexican to migrate to the United States, their leadership preferences may align more closely to their work-related values, which could be more congruent with the values of their counterparts in their home country than with those of 66 U.S.-born Caucasians. At the same time, young immigrants and second-generation immigrants may develop a duality in values or merely carry more U.S. values as they gain exposure to the host country's values at school, at other social institutions, and through social media from an early age. The leadership preferences of Mexican immigrants at various stages of acculturation may challenge organizational effectiveness, perceived effectiveness of leaders by Mexican immigrants, and the interactions between Mexican employees and their leaders. In Chapter 3, I discuss the methodology and data collection strategy. 67 Chapter 3: Research Method The purpose of this survey-based quantitative comparative study was to investigate the effects of acculturation on the work-related cultural values and leadership style preferences among generations of Mexican immigrants and compare these findings with U.S.-born Caucasians. Chapter 3 begins with the presentation of the research design and rationale for the study. Next, I discuss the methodology in which population, sampling procedures, and instrumentation. Subsequently, I present the data analysis plan, followed by how I addressed threats to validity and ethical concerns. The chapter ends with a summary. Research Design and Rationale I designed the study to investigate differences in work-related cultural values and preferred leadership styles among generations of Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. Prior cross-cultural researchers (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004; Inglehart et al., 2004; Schwartz, 1992, 1999; and Trompenaars & HampdenTurner, 2012), used a survey research method to help advance knowledge in the discipline. Survey research is the primary form of data collection in social studies (Baur, Hering, Raschke, & Thierbach, 2014) and is common in cross-cultural research. The problem that I researched in this study was that U.S.-born Caucasian Managers may not understand the differences in leadership style preferences between themselves and firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants living in the United States. Mexican immigrants may display and prefer leadership styles reflective of their cultural values, which may be different from those of U.S.-born Caucasians. The first step in addressing the problem was to compare samples of the U.S.-born Caucasians and 68 Mexican immigrants quantitatively. I used a survey design to collect multiple data points which were used to analyze the differences in values and leadership preferences between Mexican immigrants, Mexicans, and U.S.-born Caucasians. Using a standard questionnaire I collected data from participants across two countries in a limited amount of time on universally accepted work-related values, inclination toward home-country values, leadership preferences, and level of acculturation at the psychological level. The strengths of a survey design far outweigh its weaknesses. Because this study measured the preferences and perceptions of individuals, a survey was the most appropriate tool for the research. Methodology Population The target population for this study included U.S.-born Caucasians, firstgeneration Mexican immigrants, second-generation Mexican immigrants, and Mexicans 18 years of age or older. First-generation Mexican immigrants are people of Mexican descent born in Mexico and who migrated to the United States at any age. Secondgeneration Mexican immigrants are the children of one or two first-generation Mexican immigrants. U.S.-born Caucasians are White people of European descent born in the United States. Mexican are people of Mexican descent living in Mexico. According to the U.S. Census (2014), Mexicans account for nearly 64% of the Hispanic population in the United States. The Hispanic population in 2013 was about 34.6 million, of which the population of first-generation of Mexican immigrants was 11.5 million, and the population of U.S.-born Mexicans was 23.1million (Lopez, 2015). 69 The high diversity of the Greater San Francisco Bay Area in California (henceforth referred to only as the Bay Area) was ideal for my study. The Bay Area is composed of nine counties-Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, and Alameda-and has a high concentration of immigrants, of which the majority are Hispanics or Latinos (23.5% of total population) followed closely by Asians (23.3% of total population). I selected two out of the nine counties that make up the Bay Area, Napa and Solano Counties, because of their relatively similar proportions of Mexican and non-Hispanic Caucasian residents. Approximately 52.2% (302,169) of the population is non-Hispanic Caucasian, and about 17.2% (99,347) of the population is Mexican (U.S. Census, 2017a, 2017b). Table 2 shows a breakdown of Mexican population versus Caucasian population. Table 2 Breakdown of Caucasian and Mexican population between the Napa and Solano Counties Solano Napa Combined N % N % N % Population 436,092 100% 142,456 100% 578,548 100% Caucasian 199,838 45.8% 102,331 71.8% 302,169 52% Mexican 66,944 15.4% 32,430 22.8% 99,374 17% Developed from U.S. Census data from 2010 (U.S. Census, 2017a, 2017c). According to the U.S. Census (2017d), the approximate number of firstgeneration Mexican immigrants living in Napa County who were born in Mexico is 18,095, or 55.79% of the Mexican population. The estimated number of first-generation Mexican immigrants residing in Solano County who were born in Mexico is 27,286, or 70 40.75% of the Mexican population. There are approximately 70,514 Mexicans and 251,386 Caucasians 18 years or older living in the Napa and Solano Counties. Sample Participants had to be adults of at least 18 years of age who self-identified as Mexicans or Caucasians of European descent. Because research has shown (e.g., Day et al., 2014; Frost, 2016; Harms & Spain, 2016) that leadership preferences form before employment, participants did not need to be working. There were no limitations on gender or educational attainment. A short demographic questionnaire helped identify participants based on race and ethnic background. I took special care to ensure participants were either Mexicans living in Mexico; first-generation Mexican immigrants; second-generation Mexican immigrants; or U.S.-born Caucasians. To maintain anonymity, participants did not submit signed consent forms after receiving information on the purpose of the study, including future use of the data collected. I did not collect personal identification information from participants and assured confidentiality about the responses to the questionnaires. The sampling framework was the 302,169 non-Hispanic Caucasian and 99,347 Mexicans residing in the Napa and Solano Counties of the Bay Area. Using G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2013), a power analysis for a one-way ANOVA with four groups, an alpha (α) of 0.05, a power of 0.80, and a .25 effect size provided a sample size of 180. That is 45 participants per group. Given that statistical significance is a function of sample size, I aimed to recruit 60 participants from each group. I drew the sample from the target population of 401,516. Although I applied probability sampling, I also examined the sample for representativeness. 71 Sampling Procedures Procedures for recruitment. I used several methods of recruitment for this study. First, to recruit participants from the Napa and Solano Counties, I obtained permission from local community colleges in the Solano and Napa counties to access their student population. I informed the research board of the colleges of the research purpose, the importance of the study, and how it may affect their particular institution. I invited students and staff to participate in the survey via their school email. About 40% of the households of Mexican immigrants in Napa County and about 33% of the families in Solano County are not fluent in English (U.S. Census, 2017e). I provided invitations as attachments in Spanish and English. To maximize the number of Mexican immigrants invited to take the survey, I obtained permission from a Head Start organization operating in Napa and Solano Counties to contact their staff and the families they serve. The nonprofit organization operates throughout both counties, servicing more than 1,000 families. I informed the directors of the program the purpose of my research, the importance of the study, and how it may affect their organization. The Head Start programs offer several services to help low-income families succeed. The majority of the families served in the Napa and Solano Counties are Hispanic. I requested the family advocates to notify their families before sending invitations. I wrote the letters to the potential participating families in English and Spanish and had the family advocates deliver them in a sealed package that contained a return envelope. To recruit Mexicans living in Mexico, I reached out to a couple of college and university professors in Veracruz, Mexico. According to the Instituto National de 72 Estadística y Geografía (2017), Veracruz is not only the third most populous state in Mexico but also the third most diverse state. I asked for permission to reach out to their students to recruit them for the study. I informed the professors and students of the purpose of my research, the importance of the study, and how it may affect them. I provided the invitation to Mexican professors for them to distribute the invitation to their students via their school email. The invitation was in Spanish. Those who chose to take the survey were able to access it directly through a link to the survey included in the email. Participation. The letter of invitation and informed consent included the purpose and goals of the study, instructions for accessing the survey, ethical and privacy particulars, details about participating and opting out, and contact information for questions (see Appendix E). Participants received a unique web link to access the webbased survey. The link was included in the invitation letter. People who did not have access to the Internet received a package; included were the invitation letter and informed consent, a preaddressed envelope with prepaid postage for the convenience of the participants, a paper version of the survey, and instructions on how to return the survey. To preserve anonymity, the participants were instructed not to sign and return the inform consent and not to write their name in any portion of the electronic or paper-based survey. Instead, they were asked to retain the invitation letter and informed consent for their records. Their participation in the web-based survey or the returning of the paper survey was acknowledgment and acceptance to participate. There was a brief demographic section in the survey. The demographic information that was requested included their city and county of residence, age, gender, race, ethnic background, and 73 country of birth, parents' country of birth, parents' ethnicity and race, number of family members in the United States, job industry, job title, and education level. The demographic information helped me select participants who met the requirements of the study. Data collection. The primary data collection tool was a web-based survey. Participants received a link via their email from their professors, institutions, or Head Start organization. A secondary data collection tool was available for participants without technological access or abilities. Institutions and Head Start organization distributed a paper survey if needed (see Appendix F). Participants submitted the survey electronically or via a self-addressed pre-stamped envelope. No further contact was required with participants after they completed and submitted their survey responses. Participants had the option to request the results of the study, which I distributed at the end of the study. Data collected were available for download to Excel to import to a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) file. I manually entered data from paper surveys into an Excel file and crosschecked for accuracy. I communicated the results from the study to the assisting institutions and organizations to finalize their involvement and inform them of the possible impacts of the findings. Instrumentation and Operationalization of the Constructs Existing instruments did not directly serve the purpose of this research. Therefore, I used several existing tools to develop a questionnaire for this study. I drew a combination of questions from existing scales to build a 5-point Likert-type scale to measure leadership preferences, work-related cultural values, and acculturation. The 74 scores represented the level of agreement that the participants had with the statements in the questionnaire. I examined the mean scores using t-tests and ANOVA. Appendix G shows the relationship between the survey items and the research questions. I conducted a pilot study to assess the reliability of the instrument before conducting the full-scale study. I assessed internal consistency reliability by calculating Cronbach's alpha, which is the most widely accepted measurement of reliability. Reliability is "the lack of distortion or precision of a measuring instrument" (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000, p. 643). Cronbach's alpha describes the precision of an instrument in a 0–1 scale (Cronbach, 2004). Although there is no universally accepted minimum reliability value (Bonett & Wright, 2015), I considered values far below .7 unacceptable. The items of the construct with low Cronbach's alpha were to be examined, reworded, and tested once more to ensure the construct is measured correctly. However, I was not allowed to reword or change one of the instruments I used per my agreement with the author of the scale. Leadership Preferences Leadership preferences develop according to the conceptualization of the ideal leader based on knowledge structures reflective of previous observation of patterns of leadership behavior. I adopted Erhart's (2012, p. 231) definition of leadership preference for the purpose of this study: "followers' expectations for positive and effective interactions with the leader." Based on the underpinnings of culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories (House et al., 2004), I operationalized leadership preferences as the expected behaviors followers have of leaders. I examined two leadership constructs: servant leadership and paternalistic leadership. The appropriateness of the instruments was based on the hypothesis that U.S.-born Caucasians prefer a servant leadership style 75 as opposed to Mexicans who prefer a paternalistic style (Doran & Littrell, 2013; Littrell & Cruz Barba, 2013). Servant leadership. Greenleaf (1977) coined the term servant leader. Although the term may seem contradictory, the foundation of the premise is that servant leaders have the desire to serve first, prioritizing the needs of others ahead of their own, helping followers flourish and succeed through empowerment, development, and feedback and by providing resources and creating an environment in which people can grow (Greenleaf, 1977; Liden et al., 2008; Mittal & Dorfman, 2012; Öner, 2012). Values and morality guide servant leaders and they seek to build long-lasting relationships with employees, customers, and the community (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Liden et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011). Unfortunately, Greenleaf only described but did not clearly defined servant leadership in his writings, leaving it open for interpretation. Although a full analysis was beyond the scope of this dissertation, it was essential to understand the differences between the various definitions and instruments created to measure servant leadership. Spears (2002), former executive director of the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership, identified ten characteristics of a servant leader: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. Russel and Stone (2002) classified nine of the ten characteristics Spears (2002) identified as functional attributes or operative characteristics: vision, honesty, integrity, trust, service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation for others, and empowerment. Additionally, they defined 11 accompanying attributes or supplemental attributes: communication, credibility, competence, 76 stewardship, visibility, influence, persuasion, listening, encouragement, teaching, and delegation. Barbuto, Jr. and Wheeler (2006) added calling as an additional and first characteristic of a servant leader and identified five dimensions of servant leadership: altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship. Patterson (2003) developed a servant leadership model based on existing literature as an extension of transformational leadership. Patterson identified seven virtues of a servant leader: agapao love, humility, altruistic, visionary, trusting, empowering, and serving. Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) developed the measurement of these attributes, and three independent studies validated the constructs (Bryant, 2003; Dillman, 2004; Nelson, 2003). Similarly, based on the literature, Liden et al. (2008) identified seven dimensions of servant leadership in their model: conceptual skills, empowering subordinates, helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting subordinates first, behaving ethically, emotional healing, and creating value for the community. Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) developed a model based on literature that focuses on the relationship between leader and follower and takes into account the leader's responsibility toward an organization. This model has eight characteristics: empowerment, accountability, standing back, humility, authenticity, courage, forgiveness, and stewardship. Although researchers developed several models based on Greenleaf's descriptions (1977) and Spears' (2002) characteristics and other leadership theories, there is no agreement among scholars on the definition of servant leadership theory (Parris & Peachey, 2013; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Many of the servant leader traits defined in the various models, however, seem to agree conceptually while other characteristics are not 77 exclusive of servant leaders (Grisaffe, VanMeter, & Chonko, 2016). This lack of exclusivity could be because several aspects of servant leadership overlap dimensions of other leadership styles such as transformational, charismatic, ethical, authentic, and spiritual (Sun, 2013). Instrumentation. Researchers such as Barbuto, Jr. and Wheeler (2006), Dennis and Bocarnea (2005), Liden et al. (2008), Ming (2005, and Van Dierendonck & Nuijten (2011) have developed various instruments since Greenleaf (1977) first introduced the term servant leadership. Given the lack of a commonly accepted definition, there are as many instruments as there are definitions. There is also no agreement on a measuring strategy (Parris & Peachey, 2013; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Barbuto, Jr and Wheeler (2006) developed an instrument to measure 11 characteristics within five dimensions of servant leadership. Liden et al. (2008) developed a 28-item scale (SL-28) to measures seven dimensions of servant leadership. Liden et al.(2015) later adapted it to a seven-item scale (SL-7). Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) developed an instrument to measure the seven constructs Patterson (2003) identified. Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) developed a 30-item scale to measure eight dimensions of servant leaders. Other researchers developed instruments that have a particular focus: Ming (2005) focused on a religious setting; Reed, Vidar-Cohen, and Colwell (2011) concentrated on the executive levels of an organization; and Grisaffe et al. (2016) focused on a hierarchical organization. Given that leadership preferences derive from expected traits and behaviors (Epitropaki et al., 2013), I based my measure of the preference for servant leadership on the scale Ming (2005) developed. 78 Ming (2005) developed a six-point Likert-type questionnaire (SLQ-F) to capture the followers' perspective on the ten characteristics of servant leadership Spears (2002) identified. Ming grouped these characteristics into three categories: 1. Feeling of oneness/partnership: Followers develop a sense of unity when leaders listen with all senses, show empathy, are self-aware, and strive to heal themselves and others. 2. Sense of direction: Followers gain a sense of direction when they are motivated by their leader's clear vision for the organization's future, conceptualization of their perspective, and their ability to persuade followers to act. 3. Feeling of empowerment: Followers feel empowered when they have leaders who are stewards and are dedicated to the growth and development of people and community. Ming's (2005) study investigated the relationship between servant leadership and the spiritual growth of members in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Jamaica. There were 941 valid responses to the survey. The overall Cronbach alpha for the study was.80. The 83-item instrument had five focus areas: servant leadership characteristics, intermediate servant leadership variables, pastoral leadership style indicators, spiritual experience of church members, and demographic information of respondents. A factorial analysis confirmed convergence and discriminant validity. Regression analysis demonstrated the positive relationship between the ten characteristics of servant leadership and the three intermediate categories. Although I modified the instrument, I obtained the original questionnaire and permission for its use and modification from 79 Ming (see Appendix D). For this dissertation, I focused on the intermediate servant leadership variables of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment as Ming defined. Sense of oneness. The Cronbach alpha for this variable was .90. I operationalized this variable as the level of preference for a leader who listens, is empathetic, is genuinely interested in the well-being of followers, and is self-aware. I used eight questions to assess the sense of oneness directly. Sample questions from Ming's (2005, p. 136) instrument include "pays great attention to details when someone talks to him and remembers the details in future conversations" and "is aware of all the issues and problems involving his or her employees." Sense of direction. The Cronbach alpha for this variable was .88. I operationalized this variable as the level of preference for a leader who persuades rather than dictates, clearly articulates his vision, and communicates anticipated events. I used six questions to assess the sense of direction directly. Sample questions from Ming's (2005, p. 137) instrument include "articulates our dream very well and offers a plan on what to do" and "always seeks to discuss and involve others in his thinking." Feeling of empowerment. The Cronbach alpha for this variable was .77. I operationalized this variable as the level of preference for a leader who is genuinely interested in developing followers, commits to giving to and supporting others and the community, and gives people control of their work. I used six questions to assess the feeling of empowerment directly. Sample questions from Ming's (2005, p. 138) instrument include "demonstrates a strong commitment to serving the needs of members" 80 and "recognizes the potential values of individual members and helps them realize their potential in every possible way." Paternalistic leadership. Paternalistic leadership derives from the premise that leaders adopt the role of a parent and guide, care for, nurture, and protect their employees as a father would protect his children (Öner, 2012). Paternalistic leaders are often authoritarian and benevolent father-like figures who are obligated to take care of followers' well-being in exchange for devotion and respect (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). Researchers revealed that the authoritarian aspect of paternalistic leadership found in China (Cheng et al., 2013), India (Rawat & Lyndon, 2016), and Turkey (Öner, 2012) has a positive effect on the follower-leader relationship. In Mexico, however, Littrell and Cruz Barba (2013) and Martínez Méndez et al. (2013) identified that paternalistic leadership is more democratic and participative. I based my measure of the preference for paternalistic leadership on the scales Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, and Farh, (2004), Aycan (2006), and Pellegrini and Scandura (2006) developed. Instrumentation. Researchers have used various instruments to measure paternalism. Cheng et al.'s (2004) Paternalistic Leadership Scale is a 28-item scale that measures three dimensions of paternalism: benevolence, morality, and authoritarianism. Although the scale initially had 42 items (Chen, Eberly, Chiang, Farh, & Cheng, 2014), researchers have used abbreviated versions of the scale (Chen et al., 2014; Cheng et al., 2004; Tang & Naumann, 2015), and their psychometric properties were validated. Cheng et al. developed the scale for use in China (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008), and researchers have only tested its generalizability among Asian countries (Cheng et al., 2013; Rawat & Lyndon, 2016). Cheng's et al. (2004) based the scale on a multidimensional construct that 81 includes authoritarianism, which researchers showed relates positively to fearing a supervisor (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). Mexicans prefer a democratic and paternalistic style of leadership rather than authoritarian (Littrell & Cruz Barba, 2013; Martínez Méndez et al., 2013; Ruiz et al., 2013). The Cheng et al. (2004) scale did not appear appropriate for this study. Aycan (2006) developed a scale to test the relationship between four types of leadership style: benevolent paternalism, exploitative paternalism, authoritative approach, and authoritarian approach. The scale measures five factors: family atmosphere at work, individualized relationships, involvement in employees' non-working lives, loyalty expectation, and status hierarchy and authority. Participants of the study were 177 employees from private and public organizations. The scale included 21 items with a Cronbach alpha of .85. The instrument underwent validation by testing its correlation to three existing scales. Aycan et al. (2000) used a short version of the scale to measure paternalism in a large-scale study. The study had 1,954 participants from 10 countries (Canada, the United States, Turkey, China, Pakistan, India, Germany, Romania, Israel, and Russia). Researchers tested the Cronbach alphas for each country, and they ranged from .60 to .72. Liberman (2014) used the paternalistic scale Aycan (2006) developed to examine the perception of paternalism and its effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment based on the responses of 469 managers and employees from the United States and Chile. The Cronbach alphas reported were higher than .60 for all samples. I did not use Aycan's scale because the reliability scores were not consistently .70 or higher when tested. 82 Pellegrini and Scandura (2006) used Aycan's (2006) data to develop their own 13-item instrument to investigate the relationships between paternalism and job satisfaction (among other factors) in business organizations in Turkey. Participants were 185 full-time employees from five different Turkish companies. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was .86. Researchers designed the questions to gather the opinions of participants about leadership behavior. This scale was more appropriate for my study as the questions solicit opinions about behaviors. I obtained permission to use it in my study (see Appendix C). I prompted participants to answer the questions based on their individual-level preferences for a style of behavior rather than an evaluation of existing practices. Work-Related Cultural Values Work-related cultural values are beliefs that guide people's choices and evaluation of their behavior and that of others in a work environment. I used a 5-point Likert-type scale to measure power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution based on the IWoRC model developed by Taras (2008). Taras's model assesses individual-level values along cultural dimensions that have strong relevance to the workplace. Power distance. Power distance is the acceptable or normal degree of inequality between people within a culture. People from societies with high power distance tend to expect leaders to be authoritative, to have special privileges, and to depend on formal rules, among other characteristics (Hofstede, 2001). In contrast, in societies with low power distance, people expect leaders to rely on experience, consult with subordinates, and have no special privileges (Hofstede, 2001). Although researchers have measured 83 power distance in several cross-cultural studies, they often do so from a societal perspective as opposed to from an individual viewpoint. Results from these studies placed Mexico as a high power distance society and the United States as low power distance society (Dorfman et al., 2012; Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004). I operationalized this variable as the level of agreement people have with attitudes or beliefs about work-related inequalities. Sample questions from the Taras (2008, p. 262) instrument include "In business, people in lower positions should not question decisions made by top managers" and "I believe it is better not to show your disagreement with your boss." Gender egalitarianism. Gender egalitarianism is the perception of equality among men and women in their work-related rights, capabilities, and responsibilities (Taras, 2008). People from gender-egalitarian societies expect their leaders to be democratic, self-sacrificing, collectively oriented, responsive, and informal, to be a delegator, and to have foresight and enthusiasm without being secretive, self-centered, or status-conscious (House et al., 2004, p. 388). I operationalized this variable as the level of agreement people have with attitudes or beliefs about gender equality. Sample questions from the Taras (2008, p. 262) instrument include "It is usually better to have a man in a high-level managerial position rather than a woman" and "Generally, a woman shouldn't focus on her career because it leaves her little time for her family." Status attribution. Status attribution is the ascription of status according to who the person is as opposed to their achievements and skills. According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2012), in a business environment, ascription may depend on age, professional experience and qualifications, education, or a combination of these. In 84 achievement-oriented societies, people use titles when relevant to task competence; superiors gain respect through their expertise, skills, and effectiveness at their jobs; senior management varies in age and gender, based on job proficiency; and staff challenge decisions based on functionality and technical functionality (Trompenaars & HampdenTurner, 2012, pp. 144-145). I operationalized this variable as the level of agreement people have with attitudes or beliefs about status ascription. Sample questions from the Taras (2008, p. 262) instrument include "In most cases, older and more experienced managers are much more effective than young managers with fewer years of experience" and "In most cases, the rank and prestige of a university is a very good predictor of the future performance of its graduates" Instrumentation. The work-related value assessment (Taras, 2008) measures three work-related cultural dimensions: power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution. Taras developed the questionnaire for his dissertation. He used the IWoRC to collect information about individual preferences of cultural values that influence behavior in the workplace and that are likely to differ between immigrants and locals (Taras et al., 2013). The assessment is in perfect alignment with the purpose of this study. Although I modified the instrument, I obtained the original questionnaire and permission for its use and modification from Taras (see Appendix B). Taras developed the assessment to measure individual preferences as opposed to societal or organizational preferences. Taras identified the cultural dimensions through a survey of 28 leading cross-cultural management scholars. He selected the highest-scoring values that related to culture and the workplace. The IWoRC collects data at the individual level, which researchers use to evaluate the psychometric properties of the 85 instrument. Although research initially identified four value dimensions, the psychometric properties of universalism contributed to its elimination from the instrument (Taras, 2008). The population of Taras's dissertation included 1,644 immigrants and 450 Canadians. Although Taras directly measured Mexicans, he included them in the Latin American subgroup. The reported Cronbach alphas for the three included constructs are 0.73 for power distance, 0.87 for gender egalitarianism, and 0.69 for status attribution. Taras et al. (2013) used the IWoRC in another study to assess acculturation at the value level as well as the artifactual level of immigrants living in Canada. The population of the study included 1,713 immigrants and 450 Canadians. The immigrant sample included people from 28 different countries clustered into 15 subgroups. The Cronbach alphas in this study for power distance were 0.82, 0.68 for gender egalitarianism, and 0.71 for status attribution. Acculturation Acculturation is a process by which members of one culture modify their values, beliefs, and practices in response to direct contact and interactions with members of another culture. I did not evaluate acculturation based on the domain of English language and preferences for garments, media, and food as this does not have any indication of changes in values. Instead, I measured acculturation exclusively at a value level by assessing traditional Mexican values and U.S. mainstream cultural values. Traditional Mexican values include familism, respect, religiousness, and traditional gender roles. U.S. mainstream cultural values include material success, independence, and self86 reliance. I will use the scores of a Likert-type scale, self-reporting survey to measure the values. Familism is the belief that the needs of the family have priority over the personal needs of any one member, and that members have an obligation toward the family (Campos et al., 2014; Knight et al., 2010; Morgan Consoli & Llamas, 2013). Campos, Perez, and Guardino (2016) identified that familism was higher in Latinos than in people with a European or Asian background. I operationalized this variable as the level of agreement people have with attitudes or beliefs about the importance of family. Sample questions from the instrument by Knight et al. (2010) include "Parents should teach their children that the family always comes first" and "Family provides a sense of security because they will always be there for you." Respect is the importance given to the submission and acceptance by children of parents' mannerisms, decision-making reasoning, and intergenerational behaviors (Knight et al., 2010). I operationalized this variable as the level of agreement people have with attitudes or beliefs about the importance of respecting elders and people of higher status. Sample questions from the instrument by Knight et al. (2010) include "Children should respect adult relatives as if they were parents" and "It is important for children to understand that their parents should have the final say when decisions are made in the family." I will modify questions to fit the study. Religiousness is the level to which the internalization of faith and participation in religious activities influences the decisions individuals make (Barber, 2014; Smith, 2015). I operationalized this variable as the level of agreement people have with attitudes or beliefs about the importance of religion. Sample questions from the instrument by 87 Knight et al. (2010) include "Religion should be an important part of one's life" and "One's belief in God gives inner strength and meaning to life." Traditional gender roles refer to the view that males and females have different roles in the family and society, and the expectation for each differs according to those beliefs. I operationalized this variable as the level of agreement people have with attitudes or beliefs about segregation of duties and responsibilities according to gender. Sample questions from the instrument by Knight et al. (2010) include "Men should earn most of the money for the family so women can stay home and take care of the children and the home" and "It is important for the man to have more power in the family than the woman." Material success is the belief that goods owned and financial wealth are measurements of achievements in life, thus earning money takes priority (D'AnnaHernandez et al., 2015). I operationalized this variable as the level of agreement people have with attitudes or beliefs about the importance of money and personal possessions. Sample questions from the instrument by Knight et al. (2010) include "Money is the key to happiness" and "Owning a lot of nice things makes one very happy." Independence and self-reliance refer to the level of importance given to privacy and the belief that one accomplishes personal achievement through personal efforts and the struggle to overcome personal problems circumstances rather than expecting or seeking assistance from others. I operationalized this variable as the level of agreement people have with attitudes or beliefs about the importance of being able to solve problems without the assistance of others. Sample questions from the instrument by Knight et al. (2010) include "As children get older their parents should allow them to make their own 88 decisions" and "When there are problems in life, a person can only count on him or herself." Instrumentation. Knight et al. (2010) developed the Mexican American Cultural Values Scale (MACVS) to measure the traditional Mexican values of familism, respect, religiousness, and traditional gender roles, along with U.S. mainstream cultural values of material success, independence and self-reliance, and competition and personal achievement. The researchers determined the appropriateness of the scale by the direct relationship between its measures and the research questions of their study. Although I modified the instrument, I still obtained permission from Knight (see Appendix A) for the use and restricted modification of his scale. I excluded the gender roles subscale and formed a composite measure of familism values from the subscales of familism support, familism obligation, familism referent, and respect. Knight developed the scale from information gathered from focus groups made up of Mexican immigrant adolescents and their parents. Although the 50-item scale measures nine specific values, the three familism values of familism support, familism obligations, and familism referents were combined into a single familism measurement. Knight et al. (2010) recommended not using them separately because of their low internal consistency coefficients. The reported Cronbach's alpha for the merged familism scale ranged between .79 and .80 for the three groups (adolescents, mothers, and fathers). The reliability scores for the respect subscale ranged between .68 and .75, the religion subscale ranged between .78 and .84, and the traditional gender roles ranged between .78 and .84. As for the mainstream United States values, the reliability coefficients were .77 for material success, .53 for independence and self-reliance, and .59 for competition and 89 personal achievement. Similar to the familism subscale, Knight et al. recommended using a composite of the three scales into a U.S. mainstream value scale as this produces a higher Cronbach's alpha of around .80. Several researchers used the scale in their studies. Morgan Consoli, Llamas, and Consoli (2016) used the MACVS along with a resilience and thriving scale to examine traditional Mexican values and U.S. mainstream values as predictors for thriving. The population for the study included 124 self-identified Mexican and Mexican American college students. The Cronbach's alpha for the MACVS ranged between .71 and .97. In a longitudinal study, Knight et al. (2014) examined, across seven years, variations in acculturation trajectories taken by Mexican immigrants. The MACVS version used in the study did not include the subscale of gender roles. Independent Variables There are four independent variables in this study: Mexicans, first-generation Mexican immigrants, second-generation Mexican immigrants, and U.S.-born Caucasians. Mexicans are people who identify as Mexican and who were born and currently live in Mexico. First-generation Mexican immigrants are individuals who identify as Mexican who migrated to the United States and who were born in Mexico. Second-generation immigrants are U.S.-born children whose parents are firstgeneration immigrants. U.S.-born Caucasians are people of European descent who were born in and currently live in the United States. 90 Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted to validate the survey instrument that was adapted from the existing survey questionnaire. The pilot study ensured that the questions were appropriate for my research situation and that all the items reliably measured what they were intended to measure for the study. Data were collected via a web-based survey and paper form surveys. With permission from the dean of research, I recruited 75 participants from a community college in California. I also recruited 25 participants from a university in Mexico. The students were at least 18 years old. They were asked for feedback after taking the initial survey to obtain face validity. I inquired about the difficulty of answering the questions, whether the items were confusing, upsetting, or contained difficult language, and I asked for suggestions of alternate ways to ask the same question. Various statistical tools (such as correlation coefficients and Cronbach's alpha, etc.) were used to test the reliability and validity of the measures. Data Analysis Plan The principal purpose of statistical analysis is to summarize and manipulate data to make inferences regarding the variables of a research problem (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). As mentioned in Chapter 1, four research questions helped guide this study. Guided by the research questions and based on literature review, I formulated eight null and alternative hypotheses. RQ1 – Are there significant differences in work-related cultural values between firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians? 91 H011: Native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants will score equal or lower on the cultural dimensions of power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. Ha11: Native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants will score higher on the cultural dimensions of power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. RQ2 – Are the work-related cultural values of Mexican immigrants more in line with those of Mexico than with those of the United States? H012: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score equal or higher on power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution than other first-generation Mexican immigrants. Ha12: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score lower on power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution than other first-generation Mexican immigrants. H021: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score equal or higher on religiosity and familism, and equal or lower in the U.S. mainstream values of material success, competition and personal achievement and independence and self-reliance than other and first-generation Mexican immigrants. Ha21: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score lower on religiosity and familism, and higher in the U.S. mainstream values of material success, competition and personal 92 achievement and independence and self-reliance than other first-generation Mexican immigrants. H022: Native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants will score equal or lower on the traditional Mexican cultural dimensions of religiosity and familism, and equal or higher in the U.S. mainstream values of material success, competition and personal achievement and independence and self-reliance than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. Ha22: Native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants will score higher on the traditional Mexican cultural dimensions of religiosity and familism and lower in the U.S. mainstream values of material success, competition and personal achievement and independence and self-reliance than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. RQ3 – What are the differences in the preferred leadership styles among generations of Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts? H031: Native Mexicans will score equal or higher in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment and equal or lower in the paternalistic leadership scale than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. Ha31: Native Mexicans will score higher on the paternalistic leadership scale and lower in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. H032: Mexican immigrants will score equal or higher in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment and equal or lower in the paternalistic leadership scale than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. 93 Ha32: Mexican immigrants will score higher on the paternalistic leadership scale and lower in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. RQ4 – Are the preferred leadership styles of Mexican immigrants more in line with those of Mexico than with those of the United States? H041: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score equal or lower in the paternalistic leadership than other first-generation Mexican immigrants. Ha41: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score higher in the leadership paternalistic leadership than other first-generation Mexican immigrants. H042: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score equal or higher in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment than other first-generation Mexican immigrants. Ha42: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score lower in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment than other first-generation immigrants. To analyze the data using SPSS, I followed a four-step process: 1) compile collected data to a database for ease of access by SPSS, 2) download the data from electronic surveys and type in the data from handwritten questionnaires, 3) review all data for completeness and errors (double entries) as I enter them into the database, and 4) 94 perform descriptive analysis, t-tests, and ANOVA to either accept or reject the null hypotheses. I maintained a journal to track the various statistical tests, coding development, database development, and completion of procedures, forms, and assessments chronologically. Hypotheses Testing The first four hypotheses are concerned with the acculturation of values. Specifically, the focus of H011 and H012 is on work-related cultural values, and Hypotheses 3 and 4 focus on traditional values. I tested Hypotheses H011 and H012 by calculating the scores on power distance (PD), gender egalitarianism (GE), and status attribution (SA) for the samples of native Mexicans (NM), Mexican immigrants (MI, FM, SM, & YI), and U.S.-born Caucasians (US) and compared to one another. In H011, the comparison was between Mexicans and the combined sample of immigrants against the United States sample. This hypothesis was put in place to help to compare the alignment of the preferences of firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants to those of native Mexicans and U.S.-born Caucasians. In H012, the comparison was between the generations of Mexican immigrants accounting for age at migration. Consistent with Taras's (2008) IWoRC instrumentation, the coding for these variables was so that a low score indicates a preference for PD, GE, and SA and a higher degree of acculturation To test H021and H022, I calculated and compared the traditional Mexican values of familism (FL) and religiosity (RG), and U.S. mainstream values of material success (MS), competition and personal achievement (CPA), and independence and self-reliance (ISR) for all samples. In H021, the comparison was between Mexicans and the combined 95 sample of immigrants against the United States sample. This hypothesis were put in place to help to compare the alignment of the preferences of firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants to those of native Mexicans and U.S.-born Caucasians. In H022, the comparison was between the generations of Mexican immigrants accounting for age at migration. The coding for these variables was so that a high score indicates a preference for RG, FL, MS, and ISR. A greater score in MS, CPA, and ISR indicates greater degree of acculturation. The last 4 Hypotheses deal with leadership preferences. Specifically, the hypotheses focus on the preferences by native Mexicans, Mexican immigrants, and U.S.born Caucasians for paternalistic leadership (PL) or servant leadership based on the factors of sense of oneness (SO), sense of direction (SD), and feeling of empowerment (FE). I tested the hypotheses by calculating the scores on PL and variables SO, SD, and FE for the various samples and comparing them to each other. In H031and H032, I compared leadership preferences between Mexicans and the combined sample of immigrants against the United States sample. These hypotheses were put in place to help to compare the alignment of the preferences of firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants to those of native Mexicans and U.S.-born Caucasians. In H041and H042, I compared leadership preferences between the generations of Mexican immigrants, accounting for age at migration. The coding for these variables was so that a high score indicates a preference for either leadership style. Threats to Validity Assessing validity is ensuring the study measures components as intended. Internal factors threaten the legitimacy and precision of the research, while external 96 factors threaten its generalizability and representativeness (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). In addition to external and internal threats, validity relates to the theory behind the test. Construct validation is about the relationships between theory and the variables being measured. External Validity External validity is concerned with the generalizability of the findings to other segments of the population and the ability of other researchers to duplicate the study and reach the same conclusions. Because of money and time constraints, I did not include many possibly influencing variables in this study. I limited the design of this research to the acculturation experiences of one cultural group in a single foreign country. The acculturation experience may be different for other cultural groups as well as in other nations. Antecedents to migration have an effect on the speed of acculturation and on the strategy used. Differences in cultural attributes between the country from which people emigrate and the country to which they immigrate, as well the motive for migrating, may influence the strategy used for acculturation (Samnani, Boekhorst, & Harrison, 2013). In this study, however, I measured the similarity between the values of immigrants and those of the host and original country. By measuring acculturation positively, I reduced the threat to validity (Taras, 2008). Although I assumed representativeness with the selected sample, in reality, it is impossible to achieve. The United States is highly diverse, and cultural differences exist among all 50 states (Harrington & Gelfand, 2014). Similarly, Mexico is a highly diverse society with ecological and anthropological differences across the country that may signify intranational cultural variances. Finding representative samples that embrace 97 within-country cultural differences would be prohibitive in terms of practicality and cost. The technological limitations of the possible participants exasperate the threat. Not all potential participants may have access to computers to take the survey. I addressed this issue by allowing people to take the questionnaire via paper and pencil. I limited the generalizability of the results to Mexican immigrants living in the San Francisco Bay area. Internal Validity The mere process of answering a questionnaire may threaten internal validity, this is the interaction or reactive effect (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). When people take surveys, the knowledge that they are being tested may alter their attitudes. The participant's state of mind and their environment was unknown and beyond my control, thus affecting consistency or standardization. The biases of the participants were also unknown and could have an impact on external validity. I mitigated this threat by having subjects selfadminister the survey and by encouraging them to find a stress-free, non-distracting setting within which to answer the questionnaire. As with most cross-cultural research, history and maturation can present a threat to internal validity. History refers to what occurs during the time elapsed between measures that may affect the participants, and maturation refers to the changes of the participants over time (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). Using archival data to compare to newly collected data would threaten the internal validity of the study as values and extraneous circumstances may have changed over time. Attitudes in the United States toward immigrants and the political and socio-economic climate of Mexico may have changed since previous data collection. I used primary data for all variables in my study. 98 Collecting data at the same time from the various participants across both countries helped mitigate history and maturation threats. Maturation, however, may present an additional threat as Mexicans who migrated to the United States more than a decade ago may have a different perspective, and their reason for leaving Mexico may no longer be valid. I mitigated this threat by independently assessing the positive changes in values across only two generations of immigrants and collecting data about the age of the participants, age at migration, the motive for migrating, and educational background. Construct Validity Construct validity connects psychometric design to theoretical design, a way to validate the underlying theory of the instrument (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). Are the variables being measured representative of the construct being investigated? With this in mind, I based the operationalization of the variables for leadership and values on the definitions given by validated instruments used to measure such variables. Using popular and previously validated instruments ensures that the survey measures the constructs of leadership, work-related cultural values, and acculturation accurately and reliably. Although I modified the instruments, I did so to solicit individual beliefs instead of societal ones and specifically address the views of Mexican immigrants. An additional threat to construct validity is convergence. Convergence means that measurements from various sources collected differently will indicate a similarity in the meaning of the construct (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). When translating an instrument, there is a possibility that the translated instrument does not measure the same construct as the one in the original language. This problem could be due to the lack of equivalent words in the other language, in this case, Spanish. I mitigated this issue by having the questions 99 translated into Spanish by one person and then backward translating them into English. As recommended by Hofstede (2001), the translator was not only familiar with English from the United States and Spanish from Mexico, but also familiar with the context of the study to use the proper contextual transpositions: equivalents that express the intended meaning and not the apparent meaning. I compared the backward translated questionnaire to the original to ensure consistency. I discussed any discrepancy with the translator for proper selection of words. Ethical Procedures I applied for approval for this study to the Institutional Review Board of Walden University. I had verbal commitments from professors in Veracruz, Mexico, to help me distribute the survey. I also had an oral agreement from the Directors at a local nonprofit organization to have the family advocates distribute a recruitment package to families. The package included a paper survey for people with technology limitations, a return envelope, and the invitation and informed consent -this ensured the anonymity of participants. I had permission from two local community colleges to access their students via email for purposes of this study. The only risk anticipated was the stress participants might experience associated with answering questions about their personal preferences and values. There were no other anticipated risks to the study participants because I did not request any personal nor identification data from participants, and I collected data via a third party through an online survey or paper survey. Potential participants received an invitation via email or hand-delivery by either family advocates in the United States or professors in Mexico. The invitation clearly stated that the participant had the option to accept or reject participation and that any 100 information collected would be kept strictly confidential. It included details about myself and about the survey, including procedures, assessment instruments, time requirement, and contact information for the review board and myself. The invitation also indicated that completion of the questionnaire indicated acknowledgment and understanding of the terms related to participation in the study. Participants submitted electronic surveys online, and I downloaded them to a single database compatible with SPSS. Paper surveys were mailed to a PO Box, and I manually transferred them to the database once all of them were received. I stored electronic data in a password-protected external drive kept secure in a lockbox along with the paper surveys. Summary In Chapter 3, I discussed in-depth the methodology to collect data to investigate the effects of acculturation on the cultural values, work-related cultural values, and leadership style preferences among generations of Mexican immigrants and compare these findings with U.S.-born Caucasians. The chapter began with a discussion of the rationale for the use of survey design. Next, I discussed the methodology, including population, sampling procedures, recruitment, and distribution and collection of the questionnaires. In Chapter 3, I also explained how I would derive instrumentation from several existing and validated instruments. Subsequently, I presented the data analysis plan followed by how I addressed threats to validity and ethical concerns to ensure the anonymity of participants and the security of data collected. In Chapter 4, I exhibit the results of data analysis and answers to the stated research questions. 101 Chapter 4: Results The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of acculturation on the work-related cultural values and leadership style preferences among generations of Mexican immigrants and compare these findings with U.S.-born Caucasians. I designed the survey-based quantitative comparative study to investigate differences in workrelated cultural values and leadership preferences of Mexicans, first generation Mexican immigrants, second generation Mexican immigrants, and U.S.-born Caucasians. The study was limited to two counties in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area and Veracruz, Mexico. I hypothesized that the values and leadership preferences of first-generation Mexican immigrants would be consistent with those of Mexicans rather than with those of U.S.-born Caucasians. I also hypothesized that the personal values of secondgeneration Mexican immigrants would align with those from Mexicans and that their leadership preferences and work-related values would align with those of U.S.-born Caucasians. This chapter begins with a description of the data collection timeframe as well as actual recruitment and response rates and discrepancies in data collection from the initial plan presented in Chapter 3. Then, I report the baseline descriptive and demographic characteristics of the sample and describe the representativeness of the population of interest. Next, I present the findings of the statistical analysis, organized by research hypotheses. The chapter concludes with a summary of the four research questions 102 Pilot Study I conducted a pilot study after receiving IRB approval to validate the adapted survey instrument and to ensure the reliability of the all the items in the questionnaire. The IRB approval number for this study was 09-26-18-0311385. I distributed the survey to employees of a local nonprofit, to students of local community college, and to students of a university in Veracruz, Mexico after obtaining the appropriate approvals from officials at each institution. The survey was available in English and Spanish. To obtain face validity, participants evaluated the survey after completing it. They provided feedback about the difficulty of answering the questions and whether the questions were confusing, upsetting or contain difficult language. 103 people between the ages of 20 and 92 responded to the survey. I used four existing instruments to develop the survey, and three of them were modified. In the servant leadership scale I included two items from each of the 10 subscales for servant leadership to measure three intermediary variables. The measure of sense of oneness included the subscales for listening, healing, empathy, and selfawareness. The measure of sense of direction included the subscales for foresight, conceptualization, and persuasion. The measure of feeling of empowerment included subscales for growth of people, building community, and stewardship. I eliminated the items related to universalism and artifactual acculturation from the work-related questionnaire. I modified the Mexican American Value Scale to exclude the gender roles subscale. A composite measure of familism included the subscales of familism support, familism obligations, and familism referent. 103 The analysis of the data showed that the median age of the participants was 44 and that 32% were Caucasians, 31% were Mexicans leaving in Mexico, 13% were firstgeneration Mexican immigrants, and 24% were second-generation Mexican immigrants. They were asked to assess their agreement with items referring to their leadership preferences (paternalistic and servant leadership), their work-related values, and their cultural values (Mexican values, U.S. mainstream values). After careful review of the feedback from participants, I simplified the instructions of each section of the survey to eliminate confusion about the point of view of the respondent. Some items were reworded to eliminate gender bias by changings the pronouns him and his to a combination of him or her and his or hers. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Scales in the Pilot Study Scale Variables Mean Std. Dev. Number of Items Alpha Leadership Oneness 3.74 .638 8 0.81 Direction 3.95 .636 6 0.77 Empowerment 4.16 .688 6 0.83 Paternalism 3.05 .664 13 0.86 Work Values Power Distance 2.20 .853 6 0.79 Gender Egalitarianism 1.57 .635 5 0.70 Status Attribution 2.12 .689 6 0.68 Cultural Values Ind. & Selfreliance 3.71 .668 5 0.62 Material Success 1.63 .717 5 0.80 Comp. & Pers. Ach. 3.07 .918 4 0.74 Familism 3.50 .652 24 0.92 Religion 3.21 1.261 7 0.95 104 The descriptive statistics and internal consistency coefficients, Cronbach's alphas, for each scale were at an acceptable level ranging from 0.77 to 0.86 for leadership, from 0.68 to 0.99 for work-related values, and from 0.62 to 0.95 for cultural values (see Table 3). The coefficients of variability were 18% for leadership, 37% for work-related values, and 28% for personal values suggesting that the pattern of responses by participants in the pilot study did not vary much from each other within each scale. The correlation coefficients of all variables within their respective scales were positive. Data Collection The data collection period for the main study ran from January 7, 2019 through April 19, 2019. I collected data primarily through a web-based survey using eSurvey Creator. A paper version of the survey was used to collect data from participants who did not have access to a computer or who did not have the ability to use a computer. To gather data in the United States, I sent 5,867 invitations to students and staff at a local community college who self-reported to be either Mexican or non-Hispanic Caucasian. Additionally, 240 invitations were sent to the employees of a local nonprofit organization and 622 invitations were sent to families the organization serves who self-identified to be Hispanic or non-Hispanic Caucasian. To gather data from Mexico, the invitations were distributed to students of a large size University in Veracruz, Mexico with a population of over 80,000 students. I monitored the eSurvey Creator website periodically to check the status of the completed surveys. Although the sample size goal for the study was established at 240 (60 participants per group), 255 surveys were completed (64 Mexican, 60 U.S.-born Caucasian, 59 first generation immigrant, and 72 second generation immigrant). Of the 105 59 first-generation immigrants, 13 immigrated at an age of 6 years of age or younger. The total number of responses to the survey were 466 of which 424 were electronic and 42 were paper surveys. Of the 466 total participants, 10 (2.15%) dropped out after registering and 58 (12.45%) respondents were filtered out because of race (33), birthplace (1), wrong generation immigrant (18), and being Caucasian -Hispanic non-Mexican (6). Of the 398 eligible participants, 61 (15.33%) dropped out of the survey after completing the demographic section and 82 (20.60%) did not complete the survey in its entirety resulting in 255 completed surveys for a response rate of 64.07%. I used a demographic survey to collect basic non-identifiable information that to ensure eligibility of participants, to describe the characteristics of the population, and to sort the data into each of the four groups. Participants answered if they were Mexican or of Mexican descent, in which country they grew up, their race, and their country of birth. The participants also provided data about their education level, job industry, and their parent's country of birth, length of time in the United States, and race. I collected additional data to determine the size of the participants' family support group, their length of time in the United States, and their age at migration. As indicated in Table 4, the sample was skewed 74.51% women and 25.49% men. A similar gender composition existed across four different groups; the U.S.-born Caucasians were 86.67% women and 13.33% men, the first-generation Mexican immigrants were 73.91% women and 26.09% men, the second-generation Mexican immigrants were 79.17% women and 20.83% men, and young immigrants were 84.62% women and 15.38% men. The composition for native Mexicans was more evenly distribute with 56.25% women and 43.75% men. 106 Table 4 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Variables ALL US NM FM SM YM Age 39.85 44.02 41.86 50.67 29.06 32.31 Male % 25.49 13.33 43.75 26.09 20.83 15.38 Female % 74.51 86.67 56.25 73.91 79.17 84.62 Grade School 8.57 1 18 1 1 High School 13.06 8 7 9 10 1 Some College 34.29 22 4 11 42 7 AA/AS Degree 13.06 12 7 3 11 1 BA/BS Degree 17.96 13 22 2 7 2 MA/MS/MBA Degree 8.57 2 16 2 1 1 Post Graduate Degree 4.49 3 7 1 - - N 255 60 64 46 72 13 US – U.S.-born Caucasians. NM – Native Mexicans. FM – First-Generation Mexican Immigrants SM – Second-Generation Mexican Immigrants. YM – Young First-Generation Mexican Immigrants. The educational attainment of the participants varied greatly between the groups. The majority of U.S.-born Caucasian (86.67%), second-generation Mexican immigrants (84.72%), and young Mexican immigrants (84.62%) had a level of education of at least some college. The majority of native Mexicans (70.31%) had an education level of at least a BA/BS degree. On the other hand, the majority of first-generation Mexican immigrants (82.61%) had at the most a level of education of some college. As a group, the first-generation Mexican immigrants had a lower level of education. The average age of the participants was 39.85. The average age for the U.S.-born Caucasians was 44.02, for native Mexicans was 41.86, for first-generation immigrants was 50.67, for secondgeneration Mexican was 29.06, and for young immigrants was 32.31. On average, the 107 participants had at least some level of college education and it was mostly consistent across the groups. The greatest difference in education was in the first-generation immigrants group that had 35.19% of the participants with a grade school education level. Study Results Descriptive Statistics The descriptive statistics and internal consistency coefficients, Cronbach's alphas, were at an acceptable level for each of the scales as illustrated in Table 5. Work-related values scale had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.815 with each of the subscales ranging from 0.638 to 0.858. The Leadership scale had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.945 with each of the subscales ranging from 0.796 to 0.890. The values scale had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.937 with each of the subscales ranging from 0.602 to 0.953. The coefficients of variability were 21.32% for leadership, 38.26% for work-related values, and 28.73% for personal values suggesting that the pattern of responses by participants in the study did not vary much from each other within each scale. The correlation coefficients of all variables within their respective scales were positive. Measurement To address the research questions of the study I used t-tests and ANOVAs to compare the means of the variables. The use parametric tests with Likert type scales has been debated as theses scales are ordinal and the data are not normally distributed. Recent studies demonstrate that the assumption of normality can be ignored (see Blanca, Alarcon, Arnau, Bono, & Bendayan, 2017; Norman, 2010; Sullivan & Artino Jr, 2013). 108 Table 5 Descriptive Statistics of Scales Scale Variables Mean Std. Dev. N Alpha Leadership (0.945) Oneness 3.59 0.741 8 0.844 Direction 3.81 0.752 6 0.796 Empowerment 4.03 0.826 6 0.890 Paternalism 2.99 0.755 13 0.879 Work Values (0.815) Power Distance 2.08 0.708 6 0.638 Gender Egalitarianism 1.54 0.823 5 0.858 Status Attribution 2.30 0.735 6 0.680 Cultural Values (0.937) Ind. & Self-reliance 3.69 0.681 5 0.602 Material Success 1.61 0.647 5 0.751 Comp. & Pers. Ach. 3.10 0.918 4 0.718 Familism 3.58 0.747 24 0.936 Religion 3.10 1.342 7 0.953 Table 6 displays the Skewness and Kutosis of the scales which range from -1.117 to 1.608 for Skewness and from -1.294 to 2.027 for Kurtosis. The correlations of each variable were previously analyzed by the authors of each of the scales used in this study. The leadership scales, however, were tested separately for servant leadership and paternalistic leadership. Given that both scales measure similar aspects of leadership, a strong correlation between the items of both scales was expected. The correlation between items is shown in Appendix H. By definition, all people who migrated from Mexico to the U.S., regardless of age, are first-generation Mexican immigrants. However, I hypothesized that young firstgeneration Mexican immigrants would have different preferences than older first109 generation Mexican immigrants. With that in mind, I needed to separate first-generation Mexican immigrants into two groups and determine if there was significant difference between the mean scores of the two groups. I tested for normality in SPSS using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Table 6 Skewness and Kurtosis of the Scales Scale Variables Skewness Standard Error Kurtosis Standard Error Leadership Oneness -0.403 0.156 0.169 0.31 Direction -0.943 0.156 1.294 0.31 Empowerment -1.117 0.156 1.283 0.31 Paternalism 0.175 0.156 -0.109 0.31 Work Values Power Distance 0.938 0.156 1.522 0.31 Gender Egalitarianism 1.608 0.156 2.027 0.31 Status Attribution 0.304 0.156 -0.395 0.31 Cultural Values Ind. & Self-reliance -0.343 0.156 -0.297 0.31 Material Success 1.192 0.156 1.115 0.31 Comp. & Pers. Ach. 0.103 0.156 -0.66 0.31 Familism -0.442 0.156 0.384 0.31 Religion -0.087 0.156 -1.289 0.31 As shown in Table 7, the data were not normal for the gender egalitarianism and status attribution variables (p < .05) and normal for all other variables. Because the sample of young immigrants was small (n=13) and the data were not normal, I ran a Mann-Whitney test which showed that there was only a significant difference in the mean scores for gender egalitarianism, (U = 134.5, p = .002), for status attribution (U = 98.5, p 110 = .000), and for competition (U = 176, p = .028). Therefore, I did not split the firstgeneration Mexican immigrant group to test the hypotheses. Table 7 Mann-Whitney U test for first-generation and young Mexican immigrants MannWhitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2tailed) Exact Sig. (2tailed) Exact Sig. (1tailed) Point Probability SO 290.500 381.500 -0.156 0.876 0.881 0.441 0.004 SD 272.000 363.000 -0.495 0.620 0.628 0.314 0.003 FE 257.500 348.500 -0.763 0.446 0.453 0.226 0.003 PL 224.500 315.500 -1.364 0.173 0.176 0.088 0.001 PD 203.500 294.500 -1.666 0.096 0.097 0.048 0.001 GE 134.500 225.500 -2.975 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 SA 98.500 189.500 -3.630 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ISR 280.000 371.000 -0.234 0.815 0.821 0.410 0.004 MS 227.500 318.500 -1.235 0.217 0.221 0.110 0.002 CPA 176.000 267.000 -2.184 0.029 0.028 0.014 0.000 RG 264.000 355.000 -0.533 0.594 0.601 0.301 0.003 FL 247.500 338.500 -0.839 0.401 0.408 0.204 0.003 SO – Sense of Oneness, SD – Sense of Direction, FE – Feeling of Empowerment, PL – Paternalistic Leadership, PD – Power Distance, GE – Gender Egalitarianism, SA – Status Attribution, ISR – Independence and Self-Reliance, MS – Material Success, CPA – Competition and Personal Achievement, RG – Religiosity, FL – Familism Hypotheses Testing Eight hypotheses were developed to help address the four research questions that guided this study. The first two hypotheses are based on the acculturation of work-related cultural values. The following 2 Hypotheses are based on the acculturation of traditional values. The last 4 Hypotheses are based on the preferences of native Mexicans, Mexican immigrants, and U.S.-born Caucasians for paternalistic leadership or servant leadership based on the factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment. 111 Work-Related Cultural Values H011: Native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants will score equal or lower on the cultural dimensions of power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. Ha11: Native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants will score higher on the cultural dimensions of power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. Table 8 Means of Work-Related Values Acculturation between Caucasians, Mexicans, and Mexican immigrants PD GE SA US 1.9361 1.2900 1.9789 NM 2.1140 1.6164 2.6371 MI 2.1295 1.6231 2.2913 PD – Power Distance; GE – Gender Egalitarianism; SA – Status Attribution. US – U.S Born Caucasians; NM – Native Mexicans; MI – Mexican Immigrants. As shown in Table 8, the mean scores of Mexicans and Mexican immigrants in the three work-related values of power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution were higher than the scores of U.S.-born Caucasians. A lower score indicates preference for low power distance, high gender egalitarianism, and attribution based on merit. An ANOVA revealed that the mean difference between groups for power distance was not statistically significant (p = .196). The mean difference between groups for gender egalitarianism and status attribution, however, was statistically significant (p = .024 and p = .000 respectively). A Tukey HSD post Hoc test revealed that the mean difference in gender egalitarianism between the U.S.-born Caucasian group and the 112 Mexican immigrant group was significant (p = .025) and insignificant between U.S.-born Caucasians and native Mexicans (p = .072) and between native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants (p = .998). The test also showed that the mean differences in status attribution was significant between U.S.-born Caucasians and native Mexicans (p = .000), between native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants (p = .004), and between U.S.-born Caucasians and Mexican immigrants (p = .013). The null hypothesis is not rejected for power distance for all groups and for gender egalitarianism between the U.S.-born Caucasians and Mexican immigrant groups and between the native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants group. The null hypothesis is rejected for status attribution for all groups and for gender egalitarianism between the U.S.-born Caucasian group and the Mexican group. H012: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score equal or higher on power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution than other first-generation Mexican immigrants. Ha12: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score lower on power distance, gender egalitarianism, and status attribution than other first-generation Mexican immigrants. 113 Table 9 Means of Work-Related Values Acculturation between Caucasians, Mexicans, FirstGeneration Mexican Immigrants, and Second-Generation Mexican Immigrants. PD GE SA US 1.9361 1.2900 1.9789 NM 2.1140 1.6164 2.6371 FM 2.2241 1.9862 2.4575 SM 2.0532 1.3306 2.1574 Total 2.07963 1.54183 2.301984 PD – Power Distance; GE – Gender Egalitarianism; SA – Status Attribution. US – U.S Born Caucasians; NM – Native Mexicans; FM – 1st-Generation Mexican Immigrants; SM – 2nd-Generation Mexican Immigrants. As shown in Table 9, the mean scores of the first-generation Mexican immigrant group, which includes first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age, were higher than the mean scores of the second-generation Mexican immigrant group. As previously mentioned, there were no significant differences between the young Mexican immigrants and all other first-generation Mexican immigrants and the group was left intact. An independent t-test revealed that equal variances were assumed for status attribution (p = .074) and not assumed for power distance and gender egalitarianism (p = .041 and p = .000 respectively). The mean difference between the two groups for power distance was not significant, t(96.653) = 1.217, p = .227. The mean differences between the groups was significant for gender egalitarianism, t(87.103) = 3.820, p = .000, and status attribution, t(128) = 2.250, p = .026. The null hypothesis is not rejected for power distance. The null hypothesis is rejected for gender egalitarianism and status attribution. Additional tests. Given the results, I performed an ANOVA and Tukey HSD post Hoc test to compare the mean scores in status attribution and gender egalitarianism 114 between U.S.-born Caucasians, native Mexicans, and first and second generation Mexican immigrants with the intent to determine if the mean scores of the two generations of Mexican immigrants are closer to the mean scores of native Mexican immigrants or U.S.-born Caucasians.. The ANOVA revealed the difference between groups to be significant at p = .000 for status attribution and gender egalitarianism. The post Hoc test revealed that the difference in scores for status attribution were significant between U.S.-born Caucasians and first-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .001) and between native Mexicans and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .001). The difference was not significant between U.S.-born Caucasians and secondgeneration immigrants (p = .457) and between native Mexicans and first-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .491). As for gender egalitarianism, the mean differences were significant between U.S.-born Caucasians and first-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .000) and between native Mexicans and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .001). There was no significant difference between the mean scores of U.S.-born Caucasians and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .991) and between native Mexicans and first-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .050). Figure 1 illustrates that, in terms of work-related values preferences, first-generation Mexican immigrants are more like native Mexicans and second-generation Mexican immigrants are more like U.S.-born Caucasians. First-generation Mexican immigrants do not perceive the abilities of men and women to be equal or may not be able to perform equally in work-related tasks. In contrast, second-generation Mexican immigrant appear to believe in gender egalitarianism just as much as U.S.-born Caucasians. 115 Figure 1. Comparison of work-related value preferences between native Mexicans (NM), first-generation Mexican immigrants (FM), second-generation Mexican immigrants (SM), and U.S.-born Caucasians (US). PD – power distance; GE – gender egalitarianism; SA – status attribution. Acculturation of Values H021: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score equal or higher on religiosity and familism, and equal or lower in the U.S. mainstream values of material success, competition and personal achievement, and independence and self-reliance than other and first-generation Mexican immigrants. Ha21: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score lower on religiosity and familism, and higher in the U.S. mainstream values of material success, competition and personal achievement, and independence and self-reliance than other first-generation Mexican immigrants. 1.0000 1.5000 2.0000 2.5000 3.0000 P D G E S A US NM FM SM 116 Table 10 Means of Main Stream and Mexican Values between Caucasians, Mexicans, FirstGeneration Mexican Immigrants, and Second-Generation Mexican Immigrants RG FL MS CPA ISR US 2.572 3.238 1.430 2.514 3.479 NM 3.113 3.438 1.699 3.488 3.787 FM 3.611 3.967 1.710 3.428 3.820 SM 3.134 3.659 1.617 3.004 3.684 RG – Religiosity; FL – Familism; MS – Material Success; CPA – Competition and Personal Achievement; ISR – Independence and Self-Reliance. US – U.S Born Caucasians; NM – Native Mexicans; FM – 1st-Generation Mexican Immigrants; SM – 2nd-Generation Mexican Immigrants. As previously mentioned, there were no significant differences between the young Mexican immigrants and all other first-generation Mexican immigrants and the group was left intact. As shown in Table 10, the mean scores of the first-generation Mexican immigrant group, which includes first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age, were higher than the mean scores of the second-generation Mexican immigrant group. A lower score indicates greater acculturation level. An independent ttest revealed that equal variances were assumed for all variables (p > .05). The differences in mean scores were significant for religiosity, t(128) = 2.018, p = .046, familism, t(128) = 2.567, p = .011, and competition and personal achievement, t(128) = 2.729, p = .007. The differences in mean scores were not significant for material success, t(128) = .743), p = .459, and independence and self-reliance, t(128) = 1.099, p = .274. The null hypothesis is not rejected for the variables of material success, competition and personal achievement, and independence and self-reliance as the mean scores for Secondgeneration Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated 117 at a young age were equal or significantly lower than those of other first-generation Mexican immigrants. The null hypothesis is rejected for the variables of religiosity and familism. Table 11 Means of Main Stream and Mexican Values between Caucasians, Mexicans, and Mexican immigrants RG FL MS CPA ISR US 2.572 3.238 1.430 2.514 3.479 NM 3.113 3.438 1.699 3.488 3.787 MI 3.347 3.796 1.659 3.193 3.744 RG – Religiosity; FL – Familism; MS – Material Success; CPA – Competition and Personal Achievement; ISR – Independence and Self-Reliance. US – U.S Born Caucasians; NM – Native Mexicans; MI – Mexican Immigrants. H022: Native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants will score equal or lower on the traditional Mexican cultural dimensions of religiosity and familism, and equal or higher in the U.S. mainstream values of material success, competition and personal achievement and independence and self-reliance than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. Ha22: Native Mexicans and Mexican immigrants will score higher on the traditional Mexican cultural dimensions of religiosity and familism and lower in the U.S. mainstream values of material success, competition and personal achievement and independence and self-reliance than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. As shown in Table 11, the mean scores of the native Mexican and Mexican immigrant groups were higher than the mean scores of the U.S.-born Caucasian group. An ANOVA revealed that the mean difference between groups was significant for religiosity (p = .001), familism (p = .000), material success (p = .038), competition and 118 personal achievement (p = .000) and independence and self-reliance (p = .020). A Tukey HSD post Hoc test revealed that the mean difference in scores were significant between U.S.-born Caucasians and Mexican immigrants for religiosity (p = .001), familism (p = .000), competition and personal achievement (p = .000), and independence and selfreliance (p = .033). The mean differences between these two groups were not significant for material success (p = .060). The mean differences between U.S.-born Caucasians and native Mexicans were significant for competition and personal achievement (p = .000), and independence and self-reliance (p = .033). The difference between these two groups was not significant for religiosity (p = .061), familism (p = .270), and material success (p = .055). The null hypothesis is not rejected for the variables of material success, competition and personal achievement, and independence and self-reliance as the mean scores for U.S.-born Caucasians were lower than those of Mexicans and Mexican immigrants. The null hypothesis is not rejected for the variables of religiosity and familism between native Mexicans and U.S.-born Caucasians. The null hypothesis is rejected for the variables of religiosity and familism between U.S.-born Caucasians and Mexican immigrants. Additional tests. Given the results, I performed an ANOVA and Tukey HSD post Hoc test to compare the mean scores of religiosity, familism, competition and personal achievement, and independence and self-reliance between U.S.-born Caucasians, native Mexicans, and first and second generation Mexican immigrants with the intent to determine if the mean scores of the two generations of Mexican immigrants are closer to the mean scores of native Mexican immigrants or U.S.-born Caucasians. The ANOVA 119 revealed the mean differences to be significant (p = .000, p = .000, p = .000, and p = .027 respectively). The post Hoc test revealed that the differences in means were significant for religiosity between U.S.-born Caucasians and first-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .000) and insignificant between U.S.-born Caucasians and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .068), between native Mexicans and first-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .157) and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = 1.000), and between first and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .163). This results indicate that first-generation Mexican immigrants value religion more than native Mexicans or second-generation Mexican immigrants, who seem to value religion equally. For familism, the differences were significant between U.S.-born Caucasians and first-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .000) and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .004), and between native Mexicans and first-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .000); the differences were not significant between native Mexicans and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .269), and between first and secondgeneration Mexican immigrants (p = .065). Interestingly, native Mexicans scored closer to the scores of U.S.-born Caucasians than either of the two immigrant groups (Figure 2). For competition and personal achievement, the mean differences were significant between U.S.-born Caucasians and firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .000, p = .005 respectively) and between native Mexicans and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .006), and between first and second-generations of Mexican immigrants (p = .023). The mean differences were not significant between native Mexican and first-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .980). For independence and self120 reliance, the mean differences were significant between U.S.-born Caucasians and firstgeneration Mexican immigrants (p =.032). The mean differences were not significant for independence and self-reliance between all other groups (p > .05). Figure 2. Comparison of traditional values preferences between native Mexicans (NM), first-generation Mexican immigrants (FM), second-generation Mexican immigrants (SM), and U.S.-born Caucasians (US). RG – religiosity; FL – familism; MS – material success; CPA – competition and personal achievement; ISR – independence and selfreliance. As illustrated in Figure 2, these results indicate that first-generation Mexican immigrants have cultural value preferences that closely align with those of native Mexicans. The only exception is familism, which is interesting because native Mexicans and U.S.-born Caucasians did not differ from each other significantly. The familism measure was composed of four factors: familism obligations, familism referents, familism support, and respect. These factors measure the importance of maintaining close affective relationships with family, parental guidance and support, family and society 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000 R G F L M S C P A I S R US NM FM SM 121 acceptance, and intergenerational hierarchical conduct (Knight et al., 2010). In contrast, independence and self-reliance measures the preference for independence instead of group loyalty, teamwork and cooperation, and family integration. I performed an ANOVA and Tukey HSD post Hoc test to compare the mean scores of the familism factors of familism obligations, familism referents, familism support, and respect between native Mexicans, first-generation Mexican immigrants, second-generation Mexican immigrants, and U.S.-born Caucasians. The ANOVA revealed the mean differences to be significant (p = .000, p = .000, p = .000, and p = .000 respectively). The results of the post Hoc test suggest that native Mexicans have individual values closer to those of U.S.-born Caucasians than either one of the generations of Mexican immigrants (Figure 3). For familism obligation, there was a significant difference between first-generation Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians (p = .009) and native Mexicans (p = .000), and between native Mexicans and secondgeneration Mexican immigrants (p = .001). All other group differences were not significant (p > .05). For familism referent, there was a significant difference between the mean scores of first-generation Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians (p = .000), native Mexicans (p = .001), and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .026); and between the mean scores of second-generation Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians (p = .041). For familism support, there was a significant difference between U.S.-born Caucasians and native Mexicans (p = .011), first-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .000), and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .001). For Respect, there was a significant difference between the U.S.-born Caucasians and the 122 firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .000, p = .018 respectively) and between native Mexicans and first-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .025). Figure 3. Comparison of familism factors and independence and self-reliance preferences between native Mexicans (NM), first-generation Mexican immigrants (FM), secondgeneration Mexican immigrants (SM), and U.S.-born Caucasians (US). FO – familism obligation; FR – familism referent; FS – familism support; RP – respect; ISR – independence and self-reliance. Figure 3 clearly illustrates that first-generation Mexican immigrants hold stronger traditional Mexican values than native Mexicans and second-generation Mexican immigrants. Native Mexicans and second-generation Mexican immigrants have very closely aligned values with the exception of familism obligation. Interestingly, familism obligation was stronger in U.S.-born Caucasians than in native Mexicans Figure 3 also shows that independence and self-reliance is stronger value for all Mexicans than for U.S.-born Caucasians. 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000 F O F R F S R P I S R U.S. NM FM SM 123 Leadership Preferences H031: Native Mexicans will score equal or higher in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment and equal or lower in the paternalistic leadership scale than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. Ha31: Native Mexicans will score higher on the paternalistic leadership scale and lower in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. Table 12 Means of Leadership Preferences between Caucasians, Mexicans, and Mexican immigrants SO SD FE PL US 3.319 3.694 3.956 2.608 NM 3.612 3.787 3.945 3.171 MI 3.710 3.866 4.112 3.076 SO – Sense of Oneness; SD – Sense of Direction; FE – Feeling of Empowerment; PL – Paternalistic Leadership. US – U.S Born Caucasians; NM – Native Mexicans; MI – Mexican Immigrants. As shown in Table 12, the mean scores of the Native Mexican group were equal or higher than the mean scores of the U.S.-born Caucasian group. An independent t-test revealed that equal variance were assumed (p > .05). The differences in mean scores were significant for sense of oneness, t(120) = -2.166, p =.032, and for paternalistic leadership, t(121) = -4.302, p =.000. The mean differences were insignificant for sense of direction, t(120) = -.653, p = .515, and feeling of empowerment, t(120) = -.071, p = .994. The null hypothesis is not rejected for the variables of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and 124 feeling of empowerment as the mean scores for U.S.-born Caucasians were equal or lower than those of native Mexicans. The null hypothesis is rejected for the variable of paternalistic leadership as the mean scores of native Mexicans were higher than those of U.S.-born Caucasians. H032: Mexican immigrants will score equal or higher in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment and equal or lower in the paternalistic leadership scale than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. Ha32: Mexican immigrants will score higher on the paternalistic leadership scale and lower in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment than their U.S.-born Caucasian counterparts. As shown in Table 12, the mean scores of the Mexican immigrant group were higher than the mean scores of the U.S.-born Caucasian group. An independent t-test revealed that equal variances were assumed (p > .05). The differences in mean scores were significant for sense of oneness, t(189) = -3.476, p =.001, and for paternalistic leadership, t(189) = -4.277, p =.000. The mean differences were not significant for sense of direction, t(189) = -1.527, p = .129, and feeling of empowerment, t(189) = -1.214, p = .226. The null hypothesis is not rejected for the variables of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment as the mean scores for U.S.-born Caucasians were equal or lower than those of native Mexicans. The null hypothesis is rejected for the variable of paternalistic leadership as the mean scores of native Mexicans were higher than those of U.S.-born Caucasians. 125 Alignment of Leadership Preferences H041: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score equal or higher in the paternalistic leadership than other first-generation Mexican immigrants. Ha41: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score lower in paternalistic leadership than other first-generation Mexican immigrants. Table 13 Means of Leadership Preferences between Caucasians, Mexicans, First-Generation Mexican Immigrants, and Second-Generation Mexican Immigrants SO SD FE PL US 3.319 3.694 3.956 2.608 NM 3.613 3.787 3.945 3.171 FM 3.526 3.667 3.862 3.058 SM 3.861 4.030 4.317 3.092 SO – Sense of Oneness; SD – Sense of Direction; FE – Feeling of Empowerment; PL – Paternalistic Leadership. US – U.S Born Caucasians; NM – Native Mexicans; FM – 1st-Generation Mexican Immigrants; SM – 2nd-Generation Mexican Immigrants. As previously mentioned, there were no significant differences between the young Mexican immigrants and all other first-generation Mexican immigrants and the group was left intact. As shown in Table 13, the mean scores of the first-generation Mexican immigrant group, which includes first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age, were lower than the mean scores of the Second-generation Mexican immigrants for paternalistic leadership. An independent t-test revealed that equal 126 variances were assumed (p > .05). The differences in mean scores were not significant, t(129) = -.268, p =.789. The null hypothesis is not rejected. H042: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score equal or lower in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment than other first-generation Mexican immigrants. Ha42: Second-generation Mexican immigrants and first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age will score higher in the servant leadership questionnaire factors of sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment than other first-generation immigrants. As shown in Table 13, the mean scores of the first-generation Mexican immigrant group, which includes first-generation Mexican immigrants who migrated at a young age, were lower than the mean scores of the Second-generation Mexican immigrants for sense of oneness, sense of direction, and feeling of empowerment. An independent t-test revealed that equal variance were not assumed (p < .05). The differences in mean scores were significant for sense of oneness, t(104.426) = -2.692, p =.008, for sense of direction, t(102.702) = -2.854, p = .005, and feeling of empowerment, t(82.843) = -3.027, p = .003. The null hypothesis is rejected. Additional tests. Given the results, I performed an ANOVA and Tukey HSD post Hoc test to compare the mean scores of sense of oneness, sense of direction, feeling of empowerment and paternalistic leadership between U.S.-born Caucasians, native Mexicans, and first and second generation Mexican immigrants with the intent to determine if the mean scores of each of the generations of Mexican immigrants is closer 127 to the mean scores of native Mexican immigrants or U.S.-born Caucasians. The ANOVA revealed that the scores between groups were different (p = .000, p = .020, p = .006, and p = .000 respectively). The post Hoc test results show that the mean differences were significant for sense of oneness between second-generation Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians (p = .000). The difference between native Mexicans and the two generations of Mexican immigrants and between U.S.-born Caucasians and first-generation Mexican immigrants were insignificant (p > .05) for sense of oneness. For sense of direction, the mean differences were significant between second-generation Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians (p = .05). The difference between native Mexicans and the two generations of Mexican immigrants and between U.S.-born Caucasians and firstgeneration Mexican immigrants were not significant (p > .05). For feeling of empowerment, the mean differences were significant between native Mexicans and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .043). The difference between U.S.-born Caucasians and the two generations of Mexican immigrants and between native Mexicans and first-generation Mexican immigrants were not significant (p > .05). For paternalism, the differences in mean scores were significant between U.S.-born Caucasians and first-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .005) and second-generation Mexican immigrants (p = .001); the differences were not significant (p > .05) between native Mexicans and either of the two generations of Mexican immigrants. As illustrated in Figure 4, second-generation Mexican immigrants have a greater preference for servant leadership than any of the other groups. First-generation Mexican immigrants and native Mexicans have the same level of leadership preferences. All 128 Mexican groups have greater preference for paternalistic leadership than U.S.-born Caucasians. Figure 4. Comparison of leadership preferences between native Mexicans (NM), firstgeneration Mexican immigrants (FM), second-generation Mexican immigrants (SM), and U.S.-born Caucasians (US). SO – sense of oneness; SD – sense of direction; FE – feelings of empowerment; PL – paternalistic leadership. Given the significant difference in preference for paternalistic leadership between all Mexican groups and U.S.-born Caucasians, I examined the scores on each of individual items that make up the scale (see Appendix I) to identify where the big difference was between the groups. An ANOVA and Tukey HSD post Hoc test revealed some significant differences and interesting observations, which are illustrated in figure 5. 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000 S O S D F E P L U.S. NM FM SM 129 Figure 5. Comparison of paternalistic leadership scale items between native Mexicans. (NM), first-generation Mexican immigrants (FM), second-generation Mexican immigrants (SM), and U.S.-born Caucasians (US). P1 – P13 are the individual items of the paternalistic leadership scale. The ANOVA indicated that there were significant differences between groups for items 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12 (p < .05). The post Hoc test results show for item 2, that the mean differences were significant between the U.S.-born Caucasians and the native Mexicans and the first-generation Mexican immigrants. For item 3, there was a significant difference between the U.S.-born Caucasians and native Mexicans. For items 5, 6, and 10, there was a significant difference between the U.S.-born Caucasians and all the Mexican groups. For item 8, there was a significant difference between the secondgeneration Mexican immigrants and all other groups. For item 9, there was a significant difference between U.S.-born Caucasians and second-generation Mexican immigrants. For item 12, there was a significant difference between U.S.-born Caucasians and native Mexicans and second-generation Mexican immigrants. 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7 P 8 P 9 P 1 0 P 1 1 P 1 2 P 1 3 U.S. NM FM SM 130 Summary The purpose of this quantitative comparative study was to investigate the effects of acculturation on the work-related cultural values and leadership style preferences among generations of Mexican immigrants and compare these findings with U.S.-born Caucasians. Eight hypotheses were tested, two were about the acculturation of workrelated values, two were about acculturation of cultural values and four were about leadership preferences. While not all the hypothesis were rejected, the results lead to additional tests to help determine the acculturation level of Mexican immigrants and the alignment of leadership preferences with either the native Mexican group or the U.S.born Caucasians group. The results of the study indicate that while second-generation Mexican immigrants have nearly fully acculturated in regard to work-related values, they have not reached the same level of acculturation for traditional values. The result also indicate that regardless of acculturation level, Mexicans prefer a paternalistic leadership style. In chapter 5, I discuss the test results of chapter 4 by interpreting the findings, making recommendations for future research, and describing the potential implications of the study. 131 Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations The purpose of this survey-based quantitative comparative study was to investigate the effects of acculturation on the work-related cultural values and leadership style preferences among generations of Mexican immigrants and compare these findings with U.S.-born Caucasians. Specifically, I compared the values and preferences of two generations of Mexican immigrants to those of U.S.-born Caucasians and Mexicans to determine if they change after migration. Findings indicated that while the work-related values of Mexican immigrants nearly fully acculturated, their cultural values and leadership preferences did not. In this chapter, I provide an interpretation of findings, followed by discussions on the limitations of the study, recommendations for future research, and potential implications of the study for positive social change. Last, I conclude the research study. Interpretation of Findings According to the literature, values and leadership preferences vary across nations based on culture. These differences are noticeable even between countries that share a border. Several large international studies have reached similar conclusions. What is not necessarily clear, is what happens to these values when a person migrates to another country. In this study I surveyed Mexicans living in Mexico, first-generation Mexican immigrants, second-generation Mexican immigrants, and U.S.-born Caucasians to determine at an individual level, their work-related cultural values, leadership preferences, and level of agreement with traditional Mexican cultural values and U.S. mainstream cultural values. I compared and contrasted the results between each of the four groups to determine the level of acculturation of each of the Mexican immigrant 132 groups and the effects that acculturation had on the leadership preferences and workrelated values of Mexican immigrants. Acculturation of Values Most of the cross-cultural research that exists on values has been conducted at a societal level and across nations (e.g., Rodriguez & Brown, 2014; Saucier et al., 2015; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012). While this research is essential for organizations when the intent is to send employees to work in other countries, it does not inform organizations that hire immigrants or that employ a highly culturally diverse population. People who grow up under the influence of one culture tend to develop values that closely align with the beliefs and practices of that culture (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Rossberger & Krause, 2014; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). When people migrate, they may face new environments, a new language, new customs, and their values may no longer align with the new culture. Immigrants need to acculturate and decide what values to keep, what values to discard, and what new values to adopt in addition to possibly learning a new language and getting used to new customs, behaviors, and cuisine. The acculturation process is not linear, and it may take decades to occur. Taras (2008) found that the speed of acculturation is not the same at the artifactual level than at a value level and that it may take more than 20 years for people to assimilate into a new culture. In a new country, immigrants may learn the language, adopt clothing style, and develop a taste for local food long before they change their value system. Because acculturation at the artifactual level may occur due to necessity such as language, or because of the availability of resources such as food and clothing, I assessed acculturation strictly at the value level. 133 While immigrants may acculturate at the value level at a slow pace, acculturation does not necessarily occur equally at home and work. Therefore, I used work-related values and cultural values to measure acculturation. According to Berry's (1997) model of acculturation, immigrants could use two different acculturation strategies and may develop two sets of values that could become salient under the right situation. This strategy may also be valid for the children of immigrants who grow up under a dual set of values: one set being taught to them by their parents who may still be acculturating, and another set being shown through social encounters and media exposure. The difference would be that children of immigrants may develop work-related values closer to those of the host country at the same time as they develop a second set of values that may be aligned closer to their cultural background. Work-Related Cultural Values. The results of this study confirm that children of immigrants, second-generation Mexican immigrants, develop a set of work-related values; power distance, status attribution, and gender egalitarianism; closely aligned to those of the host country. The work-related values of second-generation Mexican immigrants were not significantly different than those of U.S.-born Caucasians. The results also confirm that immigrants, in this study first-generation Mexican immigrants, retain their work-related cultural values, and value them at a higher level than native Mexicans. The work-related values of first-generation Mexican immigrants were more aligned to those of native Mexicans. For power distance, the results of the study align with findings in the literature. Power distance refers to the levels of acceptance and expectation of inequalities among individuals and the unequal distribution of power within an organization. While Mexico 134 is often viewed as a high power distance society (Dorfman et al., 2012; Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004) and researchers continue to use this assumption in their studies (e.g. Karl, Peluchette, & Hall, 2016; Madlock, 2018), the individual level preference is far from it. The GLOBE researchers (House et al., 2004) found that people from Mexico and the U.S. prefer a low power distance society rather than high. A low power distance suggests an egalitarian society where social power and importance is somewhat equal among all members (Ahern et al., 2015). The scores at the individual level were 2.85 for both countries in the GLOBE study, indicating a preference for low power distance. The difference in scores in this study for all groups was insignificant, and it ranged from 1.93 to 2.22. The lower scores are supported by the findings by Beugelsdijk et al. (2015) concerning value change. Beugelsdijk et al. found that power distance decreases over time as countries modernize. Power distance has also been found to be similar between the United States and Mexico in recent studies. In a cross-cultural study by Rodriguez and Brown (2014), Mexico scored 27.5 and the United States scored 25.87 in power distance at a societal level. Findings from this study suggest that Mexican immigrants may find it easy to accept a low power distance environment, making it easier to adjust to the dynamics of the work environment that exists in the United States. For status attribution, the results aligned with the findings by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2012). Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner found that Mexico is an ascriptive society yet respects people based on achievement and that the United States places status on people based on achievement and is a culture that believes in getting things done even through self-sacrifice. The findings of this study indicate that Mexicans and first-generation Mexican immigrants prefer an ascriptive society in which status and 135 respect given may depend on age, professional experience, and qualifications, education, or a combination of these. In contrast, U.S.-born Caucasians and second-generation Mexican immigrants were found to prefer a more achievement-oriented society in which people use titles when relevant to task competence; superiors gain respect through their expertise, skills, and effectiveness at their jobs; senior management varies in age and gender based on job proficiency; and staff challenge decisions based on functionality and technical functionality. Based on these results, first-generation Mexican immigrants may find it challenging to work under a supervisor that they do not perceive to have higher qualifications than them or who may be younger than they are. They would respect the individual because of their rank and position. For gender egalitarianism, the results were interesting. As expected, secondgeneration Mexican immigrants had scores similar to those of U.S.-born Caucasians, and first-generation Mexican immigrants had scores closer to those of Native Mexicans. While the scores of U.S.-born Caucasians were significantly lower than those of firstgeneration Mexican immigrants for gender egalitarianism, they were not significantly lower than those of native Mexicans. The closeness in scores between native Mexicans and U.S.-born Caucasians could have two different interpretations. One, Mexicans prefer a more gender equal society. Two, the educational attainment and gender composition of the sample of native Mexicans skewed the results of the assessment. While there is a high possibility that the results of this study are skewed, the findings are in agreement with the literature. Consistent with Taras's (2008) IWoRC instrumentation, coding for the work-related cultural values were set so that a low score indicates a preference for the value. Mexicans scored 1.62, and U.S.-born Caucasians 136 scored 1.29 in gender egalitarianism. The similarity in preferences at the individual level for gender egalitarianism matches the results from the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004), in which higher scores indicated a higher preference. Mexico scored 4.73 in values, and the U.S. scored 5.06 at the individual level for gender egalitarianism. Cultural Values. The results from this study confirm that Mexican immigrants tend to retain their traditional cultural values and pass them on to their children. Acculturation of cultural values was measured by comparing the preferences of Mexican immigrants for religiosity, familism, material success, competitions and personal achievement, and independence and self-reliance, and determining if they aligned with the preferences of U.S.-born Caucasians or native Mexicans. For religiosity, first-generation Mexican immigrants were found to be more religious than any of the other groups with a score of 3.61. The scores of native Mexicans and second-generation Mexican immigrants were nearly identical (3.11 and 3.13 respectively) and not too far different than the scores of U.S.-born Caucasians (2.57). These results could be attributed to the level of education of the participants in each group. The majority of U.S.-born Caucasian (86.67%) and second-generation Mexican immigrants (84.71%) had a level of education of at least some college. The majority of native Mexicans (70.31%) had an education level of at least a BA/BS degree and nearly half (49%) of the first-generation Mexican immigrants had less than some college education. These findings are supported by the literature which indicates that higher education levels negatively affect religiosity (Hungerman, 2014; Schwadel, 2015, 2016). Given the findings, Mexican immigrants appear to retain and perpetuate their religious beliefs. 137 For familism, as a composite variable, the results were consistent with what is found in the literature. As expected, all Mexican groups scored high on familism (Campos et al., 2014). The differences between native Mexicans and U.S.-born Caucasians were insignificant, which are attributable to the individual factors of familism. When analyzing the individual components of familism, U.S.-born Caucasians and native Mexicans had similar preferences for familism obligation and familism referent and significantly different preferences for familism support and respect. Firstgeneration Mexican immigrants scored the highest in all the familism components and the second-generation Mexican immigrants and native Mexicans scored nearly equal on familism referent, familism support, and respect. These findings indicate that the importance of maintaining close affective relationships with family is just as crucial for native Mexicans as it is for U.S.-born Caucasians and that the concern is even more significant for firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants (Knight et al., 2010). The importance of family and society acceptance is of higher importance to firstgeneration Mexican immigrants than to native Mexicans, second-generation Mexican immigrants, and U.S.-born Caucasians. The scores on respect and familism support were significantly lower for U.S.-born Caucasians than for all of the Mexican groups. Between the Mexican groups, it was equally crucial for native Mexicans and second-generation Mexican immigrants, and of highest importance to first-generation Mexican immigrants. The relatively close scores between the Mexican immigrant groups are consistent with findings in the literature that indicate that Mexicans maintain and transmit traditional values throughout generations (Calderón-Tena, et al., 2011; Gonzales et al., 2008; Wong-Mingli et al., 2014). The high 138 preference for familism by Mexican immigrants may benefit them at work. Familism has been identified as a socialization process geared toward helping family members that can be applied toward other group affiliations (Knight & Carlo, 2012; Knight, Carlo, Basilo, & Jacobson, 2015). It has been found that Mexican immigrants seek social support and express a desire to help others who face similar challenges as they do (Campos et al., 2016; Gonzales et al., 2008; Morgan Consoli Morgan, Llamas, Cabrera, Noriega, & Gonzalez, 2014). In a work setting, Mexican immigrants may find it easier to thrive in cooperative environments. The low education level of first-generation Mexican immigrants could explain why the group scored the highest, low acculturation, in religiosity, familism obligation, familism referent, familism support, and respect. Sexton (1979) found that formal education accelerates acculturation because the higher potential exposure to the host culture through a variety of media. A second explanation could be that immigrants from countries that are highly represented, such as Mexico, acculturate at a slower pace (Taras et al., 2013). Another interpretation is that the cultural values in Mexicans have been slowly changing becoming more like those in the United States. There is a duality to acculturation, while new members to a society adapt to the dominant culture, the members of the dominant culture adopt some of the aspects of the new member's culture (Berry, 2005). The increase of U.S. businesses operating in Mexico (Schafran & Monkkonen, 2017), and the exposure to and propagation of American lifestyle through media (e.g. social media, movies, television) could be creating a shift in Mexican values (Ladhari, Souiden, & Choi, 2015). 139 For the mainstream values, all Mexican groups scored equally on material success and independence and self-reliance. Although the U.S.-born Caucasians scored lower than Mexicans and Mexican immigrants, the difference was not significant. Neither of the groups believes in materiality as a path to happiness, and all of them think that learning to be independent is vital for them and their children. This finding is another similarity in cultural values at the individual level between the U.S. and Mexico. The difference, however, was found in competition and personal achievement. Only native Mexicans and first-generation Mexican immigrants had similar scores. The scores of second-generation Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians were different from each other and from native Mexicans and first-generation Mexican immigrants. The U.S.-born Caucasians score the lowest while native Mexicans and first-generation Mexican immigrants score the highest, clearly showing that first-generation Mexican immigrants have maintained their cultural values in respect to this factor and second-generation Mexican immigrants have acculturated to a degree. The results from this study align with the findings by Nieri and Bermudez-Parsai (2014) that the acculturation differences between Mexican immigrants and their children were more common along the U.S. mainstream values than along the Mexican values. What is interesting is that U.S.-born Caucasians were expected to value competition and personal achievement more than Mexicans because competition is valued at a higher level in individualistic societies than in collectivistic societies (Greenfield & Quiroz, 2013), yet it was ultimately the opposite. This could be explained by a possible shift in values occurring in Mexico due to modernization or Americanization. Inglehart and Baker (2000) demonstrated that values change overtime as countries modernize. Their 140 research showed that the values of people in Mexico changed from 1981 to 1996 becoming more secular-rational and giving more importance to self-expression, suggesting that Mexico is becoming more individualistic (Basabe & Ros, 2005). During the same timeframe, people in the United States simply gave more priority to their selfexpression values, which align with egalitarianism. Leadership Preferences The results of the study confirm findings in the literature that Mexicans prefer a democratic paternalistic leadership style (Castaño et al., 2015; Ruiz et al., 2013; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012) rather than non-participative and autocratic paternalistic style of leadership as often suggested in large cross-cultural studies (Hofstede, 1980; House et al., 2004; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner,, 2012). The findings of this study indicate that Mexicans have a preference for low power distance. People with this view expect their leaders to rely on experience, consult with subordinates, and have no special privileges (Hofstede, 2001). These results also align with the findings by Littrell and Cruz Barba (2013), Martínez Méndez et al. (2013), and Ruiz et al. (2013) that Mexicans prefer a paternalistic, democratic, and participative leadership style. The scores of the Mexican groups in gender egalitarianism also suggest the preference for democratic, self-sacrificing, collectively oriented, responsive, and informal leaders who have foresight and enthusiasm without being secretive, self-centered, or status-conscious (House et al., 2004). The additional test performed on the items of paternalistic leadership further confirm the findings by Ruiz et al. (2013) that Mexicans prefer a participative leadership style. In item 8, consults his/her employees on job 141 matters, first-generation Mexican immigrants scored 3.86, native Mexicans scored 3.89, and second-generation Mexican immigrants scored 4.33. In contrast, in item 11, makes decisions on behalf of his/her employees without asking for their approval, the score on the Mexican groups were 1.98, 2.60, and 1.99, respectively. The contrasting scores indicate the preference for democracy. While the preference for a paternalistic leadership style is stronger in Mexicans than U.S.-born Caucasians, Mexicans have an even stronger preference for a servant leadership style. This notion supports the recent study of Michaud et al. (2019) who found that Mexicans prefer empowering and servant leaders who use effective communication, inspire, involve the group in decision making, provide support, and motivate. The preference for servant leadership could also be attributed to the preference for low power distance as indicated by Mittal and Dorfman (2012). Of the three Mexican groups, the second-generation Mexican immigrants had the highest preference for servant leadership. Based on the findings in this study, Mexican immigrants, regardless of generation, would benefit from a servant leadership style with some aspects of paternalism; particularly around creating a family environment in the workplace, helping employees with issues outside of work, and taking personal interest in the wellbeing of the employees and their families offering advice to them as an elder in the family (Heidrich, Németh, & Chandler, 2016; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006; Ruiz & Hamlin, 2018). The strong alignment of the individual values of all Mexicans groups with those of U.S.-born Caucasians, particularly around independence and self-reliance, suggests that Mexican immigrants do not expect their leaders to solve problems for them, but instead, 142 to help them as needed. The results align with the finding by Ruiz and Hamlin (2018) that Mexicans and U.S.-born Caucasians have similar preferences for leadership style. The strong familism scores of firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants, particularly familism support, point to their need for leaders who have an understanding and sensitivity to family needs, help with problem-solving, and make special work arrangements to assist employees in times of need. Baeza, Gonzalez, and Wang, (2018) suggested that job flexibility would bring satisfaction to Mexican workers as it would align with their cultural beliefs and values. Acculturation did not have a significant effect on the leadership preferences of first-generation Mexican immigrants. Their preferences for each aspect of servant leadership was nearly identical to the preferences of native Mexicans and U.S.-born Caucasians. These findings indicate that first-generation Mexican immigrants living in Solano and Napa counties can easily incorporate into the workforce in the United States as their expectations for leadership are the same as those of U.S.-born Caucasians (Ruiz & Hamlin, 2018). The effect of acculturation on second-generation Mexican immigrants was minor. The preferences of this group deviated slightly from firstand native Mexicans. Second-generation Mexican immigrants had a significantly stronger preference for all aspects of servant leadership and some elements of paternalistic leadership than U.S,-born Caucasians, indicating that they feel the need to be engaged, have a sense of purpose (Van Dierendonck, & Patterson, 2015), and prefer a family style environment (Heidrich et al., 2016). 143 Summary of Findings This study was used to examine the extent to which acculturation affects the work-related cultural values and leadership preferences of Mexican immigrants in the United States of America and compare these findings with U.S.-born Caucasians. The findings indicated that first-generation Mexican immigrants selected separation as their acculturation strategy (Berry, 1997); they firmly hold on to traditional Mexican values and work-related cultural values while rejecting the mainstream values of the United States. The scores of second-generation Mexican immigrants in traditional Mexican values and U.S. mainstream values were not significantly different from either Native Mexicans or U.S.-born Caucasians, indicating that they are using integration as their acculturation strategy for these set of values (Nieri et al., 2016). As for work-related values, second-generation Mexican immigrants chose to assimilate into the U.S. cultural view, or simply developed such values as they grew up in the United States (Fitzsimmons, 2013). As hypothesized, second-generation Mexican immigrants, seem to display biculturalism; they seek more significant cultural maintenance when surrounded by family than when at work or in a public environment (Nieri & Bermudez-Parsai, 2014). These observations confirm the assumptions made during the literature review that second-generation Mexican would develop work-related values independent from other cultural values learned from their family members. While the acculturation strategy selected by firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants is different, it was found that there were not many differences in work-related cultural values between Mexicans, Mexican immigrants, and U.S.-born Caucasians. 144 Acculturation did not seem to have a great effect on leadership style preferences of Mexican immigrants. First-generation Mexican immigrants have preferences nearly identical to those of native Mexicans and U.S.-born Caucasians (Ruiz & Hamlin, 2018). The only exception being that U.S.-born Caucasians did not have as much desire for a paternalistic style leadership as the Mexican groups did. The second-generation Mexican immigrants, while maintaining the same level of preference for paternalistic leadership as native Mexicans and first-generation Mexican immigrants, had a stronger preference for all aspects of servant leadership. U.S.-born Caucasians and firstand second-generation Mexican immigrants desire to have a leader who inspires and motivates them, involves them in decision making, provides support, and is concerned about their well-being and personal development (Castaño et al., 2015; Michaud et al., 2019; & Ruiz et al., 2013). Based on this desire, organizations that employ a Mexican workforce would benefit from adopting a servant leadership style and from offering flexible schedules allowing employees to attend to family matters as they arise. Limitations of the Study There were three primary limitations of the study. The first limiting factor was data collection. I needed to collect data from participants living in the U.S. and Mexico. Data collected in Mexico was done electronically through a University and therefore was limited to people who were willing to participate and who had access to electronic media and Internet access. The questionnaire was lengthy, there was no control over the environment where the participants took the survey, and the biases of the participants are unknown. 145 A second limiting factor to the generalizability of the study was the composition of the groups. Most of the groups were between 73.91% and 86.67% female with only one group, native Mexicans, with near equal distribution. The educational level of participants was not consistent across the groups, and it was not representative of the population. The majority of native Mexicans had an education level of at least a BA/BS degree, the majority of U.S.-born Caucasians had an educational level between some college and a BA/BS degree, and the majority of Mexican immigrants had at the most some college. There could have been some confounding variables that may have skewed the results. The last limitation was resources. As a full-time employee and student researcher, I had limited time and money for this study. I was only able to gain the participation of one university in Mexico, one college in the U.S., and one employer in the U.S. to help me distribute the invitation to potential participants. With more time and more resources, I would have been able to collect data from a larger sample across a larger and more representative area. Recommendations The study was limited to the Solano and Napa counties of the Greater San Francisco Bay Area in California and a small region of the state of Veracruz in Mexico. This study compared the traditional cultural values and work-related cultural values of Mexican immigrants to those of U.S.-born Caucasians and Mexicans living in Mexico. As a comparative study, the characteristics of the groups should be similar if not equal. Future research should be conducted to include a larger geographical area in the United States and Mexico to obtain a more representative sample of the populations. As 146 indicated in the literature, there is high variability in culture within countries because of specific demographic and environmental characteristics of the different areas of a country (Fischer & Schwartz, 2011; Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2016) Values and leadership preferences could vary across the different regions of the U.S. and Mexico. I recommend securing participation and cooperation from more than academic institutions to mitigate the possibility of confounding variables. Gaining assistance from employers and social services agencies would help obtain a sample with participants who have an education level representative of the population. While assessing the culture at a societal level, regardless of the education level of the participants, individual level values and preferences may be affected by education level. Future research should be conducted to explore the impact of education on the personal level value and leadership preference. Time and resources were one of the most limiting factors to this study. I recommend that future research is not conducted by a single researcher, but by at least two researchers, one in the U.S. and one in Mexico, who can devote ample time to the collection of data from various sources. Cooperation from multiple researchers across the U.S. and Mexico would be ideal. The level and speed of acculturation are affected by many factors, including the frequency and type of relations with people of the dominant culture, exposure to their own native culture, and frequency and type of interactions with people of their native culture (Berry, 1997; Hofstede, 2001; Lopez, 2013; Taras et al., 2013; Triandis, 1994). This study did not account for the level of exposure of immigrants to either the Mexican or the American culture. The current leadership preferences and values of Mexican immigrants were compared to those of U.S.-born Caucasians and Mexican living in 147 Mexico. I recommend a longitudinal study to examine the changes in values and leadership preferences over time accounting for type and frequency of exposure to the mainstream culture of the U.S. and Mexico. Acculturation is a process by which members of one culture adapt their values, beliefs, and practices in response to direct contact and interactions with members of another culture (Berry, 1980; Keskin, 2013). Acculturation is a phenomenon that is experienced by immigrants. Immigrants who live in areas densely populated by other members of their cultural group are more likely to retain their cultural values and leadership preferences (Taras et al., 2013). The children of these immigrants grow up under the influence of their parent's culture, absorb lay theories particular to that culture, and the norms and beliefs of that culture dictate their behavior and understanding of the world. These children go through acculturation when they start interacting with society at large. I recommend that second-generation immigrants, children of immigrants, continue to be included as a specific group in future acculturation and cultural studies. The relationship between cultural values and leadership are mostly studied across countries, and they tend to ignore immigrants. This study focused on immigrants and children of immigrants, specifically Mexicans in the United States. Future research should be expanded to include immigrants from other ethnic backgrounds to assess if the effects are similar to those found in this study. The assessment of the values and preferences of different ethnic groups living in the same country should be done at the individual level and with the intent to identify commonalities rather than differences. 148 Implications The findings from this study have a practical and theoretical implication that can contribute to positive social change. From a practical standpoint, organizations that operate in areas with a high concentration of Mexicans could benefit from adopting a servant leadership style with some paternalistic aspects added. The findings in this study indicate that Mexicans immigrants prefer a servant leader who is democratic and is interested enough in their lives to be able to offer personal advice and assist on matters that extend beyond the workplace (Castaño et al., 2015; Littrell & Cruz Barba, 2013; Martínez Méndez et al., 2013). While Mexican immigrants believe to some extent that their leader knows what is best for the employees, they want to be included in the decision-making process (Michaud et al., 2019; Ruiz et al., 2013). Solely adopting a servant leadership style would be beneficial for any organization as it encourages unity, seeks to provide clear direction, and fosters employee's growth and development (Greenleaf, 1977; Liden et al., 2008; Mittal & Dorfman, 2012; Öner, 2012), and it is something that was found to be desired by all the participants in this study. Adding the paternalistic elements, specifically those that embrace the value of familism support, could enhance loyalty and retention. Human resources managers can use this knowledge to create leadership development programs that embrace diversity by accounting for the differences and similarities in leadership preferences of Mexican immigrants. Specifically, programs that educate existing and potential managers on the challenges and opportunities they may face when managing a diverse population (Saxena, 2014) that includes Mexican immigrants. Having a greater understanding of what Mexican immigrants expect from 149 their supervisors can potentially enhance the relationship between the manager and the employees and improve work productivity and efficiency. From a theoretical standpoint, the results from this study support prior research findings that indicate that more significant variability exists within a country than between countries (Fischer & Schwartz, 2011; and Taras et al., 2016). Cross-cultural research tends to focus on the differences in values and their relationship to leadership preferences between countries. Finding in this study suggest that immigrants do not necessarily share the views of the host country and prefer a different leadership style. These findings support the works of Hofstede (1980, 1993, 2001), House et al. (2004), and Schwartz (1992, 1999) which indicated that culture exerts significant influence on people's social relations and perceptions and expectations of self and others. Additionally, this study supports the findings from the GLOBE (House et al., 2004) that indicated that cultural values at the individual level (as should be) are very similar between Mexico and the United States, and they do not necessarily reflect the societal level (as is) values. These individual level values influence the implicit leadership theories of immigrants, which affect their leadership style preferences. Regarding acculturation, results from this study support Taras's (2008) findings that acculturation may take more than 20 years to complete. The results from this study indicate that first-generation Mexican immigrants have not acculturated, and secondgeneration Mexican immigrants have only acculturated partially. This observation supports Berry's (1997) bidimensional model of acculturation which stated that people choose an acculturation strategy based on the immigrant's need to retain cultural characteristics and identity and the need to engage and be involved with other cultural 150 groups. Results from this study indicate that second-generation immigrants chose to maintain their traditional Mexican values while adopting the work-related values of the United States. This finding aligns with Berry's proposition that immigrants may decide to use more than one strategy given the situation and personal variables. This study also supports the theory that second-generation Mexican immigrants develop a bicultural identity adopting traditional Mexican values and U.S.-mainstream values (Knight et al., 2010). Conclusion The findings of this study contribute to the literature of cross-cultural leadership by helping understand some of the complexities of within-country cultural variability. There were significant differences between the two generations of Mexican immigrants, U.S.-born Caucasians, and native Mexicans. The most notable differences were between U.S.-born Caucasians and first-generation Mexican immigrants along religiosity, competition and personal achievement, familism support, familism referent, respect, gender egalitarianism, status attribution, and paternalistic leadership. The main differences between U.S.-born Caucasians and native Mexicans were in status attribution, gender egalitarianism, familism support, respect, and paternalistic leadership. Native Mexicans scored closer to the cultural and work-related values of U.S.-born Caucasians than to those of first-generation Mexican immigrants, except for status attribution. Second-generation Mexican immigrants had nearly identical work-related values as U.S.-born Caucasians and almost identical cultural values as Native Mexicans. While there were significant differences between the four groups, the similarities are of greater importance. All groups indicated that strong family relationships, gender equality, 151 independence and self-reliance, and low power distance are essential. They also gave no importance to materialism. As for leadership preferences, all groups had a strong preference for servant leadership. Additionally, all groups indicated a desire to be directly involved in decision making, a work environment that supports them at the individual and family level inside and outside of the workplace, and a leader who exhibits emotional reactions. Organizations need to understand that the differences in values and leadership preferences between their diverse groups of employees pose a challenge to management and their employees. Human resources professionals should acknowledge these differences and use the information to create leadership development programs that embrace diversity and foster an environment that allows everyone to thrive. 152 References Ahern, K. R., Daminelli, D., & Fracassi, C. (2015). Lost in translation? The effect of cultural values on mergers around the world. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(1), 165–189. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1545514 Allison, S. T., & Goethals, G. R. (2014). "Now he belongs to the ages": The heroic leadership dynamic and deep narratives of greatness. In G. R. Goethals, S. T. Allison, R. M. Kramer, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Conceptions of leadership (pp. 167–183). doi:10.1057/9781137472038_10 Ashiabi, G. S., & O'Neal, K. K. (2015). Child social development in context: An examination of some propositions in Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory. SAGE Open, 5(2). doi:10.1177/2158244015590840 Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism. In U. Kim, K. Yang, & K, Hwang (EDS.), Indigenous and cultural psychology (pp. 445-466). Springer, Boston, MA. Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., & Kurshid, A. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10‐ country comparison. Applied Psychology, 49, 192–221. doi:10.1111/14640597.00010 Baeza, M. A., Gonzalez, J. A., & Wang, Y. (2018). Job flexibility and job satisfaction among Mexican professionals: A socio-cultural explanation. Employee Relations, 40(5), 921-942. doi:10.1108/ER-12-2016-0236 153 Barber, C. E. (2014). Is religiosity a protective factor for Mexican-American filial caregivers? Journal of Religion, Spirituality & Aging, 26, 245–258. doi:10.1080/15528030.2013.867422 Barbuto, Jr., J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300– 326. doi:10.1177/1059601106287091 Basabe, N., & Ros, M. (2005). Cultural dimensions and social behavior correlates: Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance. International Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 189-225. Retrieved from https://www.rips-irsp.com Basuil, D. A., Manegold, J. G., & Casper, W. J. (2016). Subordinate perceptions of family-supportive supervision: the role of similar family-related demographics and its effect on affective commitment. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(4), 523–540. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12120 Baur, N., Hering, L., Raschke, A. L., & Thierbach, C. (2014). Theory and methods in spatial analysis. Towards integrating qualitative, quantitative and cartographic approaches in the social sciences and humanities. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 39, 7–50. doi:10.12759/hsr.39.2014.2.7-50 Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In Padilla, A. M. (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5–68. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x 154 Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International journal of intercultural relations, 29(6), 697-712. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013 Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & Van Hoorn, A. (2015). Are scores on Hofstede's dimensions of national culture stable over time? A cohort analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5, 223–240. doi:10.1002/gsj.1098 Blanca, M. J., Alarcon, R., Arnau, J., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R. (2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema, 29(4), 552–557. doi:10.7334/psicothema2016.383 Bonett, D. G., & Wright, T. A. (2015). Cronbach's alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 3–15. doi:10.1002/job.1960 Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 993– 1028). New York, NY: Wiley. Brumley, K. M. (2014) "You care for your work; I'll care for your family": perceptions of paternalistic managerial actions and employee commitment in Mexico. Community Work & Family, 17, 467–485. doi:10.1080/13668803.2014.939141 Bryant, S. R. (2003). Servant leadership and public managers. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org. (UMI No. 3082716) Calderón-Tena, C. O., Knight, G. P., & Carlo, G. (2011). The socialization of prosocial behavioral tendencies among Mexican American adolescents: The role of 155 familism values. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(1), 98. doi:10.1037/a0021825 Camarota, S. A. (2015). Immigrants and their U.S.-born children. Center for Immigrant Studies. Retrieved from https://cis.org/ Campbell, K. D. (2013). Mythology as the original framework in the development of leadership principles. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 48–54. doi:10.1002/jls.21290 Campos, B., Perez, O. F. R., & Guardino, C. (2016). Familism: A cultural value with implications for romantic relationship quality in U.S. Latinos. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(1), 81–100. doi:10.1177/0265407514562564 Campos, B., Ullman, J. B., Aguilera, A., & Schetter, C. D. (2014). Familism and psychological health: The intervening role of closeness and social support. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 191–201. doi:10.1037/a0034094 Castaño, N., Sully de Luque, M. F., Wernsing, T., Ogliastrini, E., Shemueli, R. G., Fuchs, R. M., & Robles-Flores, J. A. (2015). El Jefe: Differences in expected leadership behaviors across Latin American countries. Journal of World Business, 50, 584– 597. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2014.12.002 Castles, S., De Haas, H., & Miller, M. J. (2013). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world (5th ed.). London: Pelgrave Macmillan. Celeste, L., Brown, R., Tip, L. K., & Matera, C. (2014). Acculturation is a two-way street: Majority–minority perspectives of outgroup acculturation preferences and 156 the mediating role of multiculturalism and threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43(B), 304–320. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.10.002 Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40, 796–819. doi:10.1177/0149206311410604 Cheng, B. S., Boer, D., Chou, L. F., Huang, M. P., Yoneyama, S., Shim, D., & Tsai, C. (2013). Paternalistic leadership in four Asian societies: generalizability and cultural differences of the triad model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 82–90. doi:10.1177/0022022113490070 Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinates responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 89–117. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839x.2004.00137.x Christ, O., Asbrock, F., Dhont, K., Pettigrew, T., & Wagner, U. (2013). The effects of intergroup climate on immigrants' acculturation preferences. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 221, 252–257. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000155 Choi, Y., Kim, Y. S., Pekelnicky, D. D., & Kim, H. J. (2013). Preservation and modification of culture in family socialization: Development of parenting measures for Korean immigrant families. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4, 143–154. doi:10.1037/a0028772 Chong, L. M. A., & Thomas, D. C. (1997). Leadership perceptions in cross-cultural context: Pakeha and Pacific islanders in New Zealand. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 275–293. doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(97)90004-7 157 Consiglio, C., Cenciotti, R., Borgogni, L., Alessandri, G., & Schwartz, S. H. (2016, March). The WVal: A new measure of work values. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(3), 405–422. doi:10.1177/1069072716639691 Cronbach, L. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 391–418. doi:10.1177/0013164404266386 D'Anna-Hernandez, K. L., Aleman, B., & Flores, A. M. (2015). Acculturative stress negatively impacts maternal depressive symptoms in Mexican-American women during pregnancy. Journal of Affective Disorders, 176, 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.036 Davila, A., & Elvira, M. M. (2012). Humanistic leadership: Lessons from Latin America. Journal of World Business, 47, 548–554. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.008 Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 63–82. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004 De Mooij, M., & Beniflah, J. (2016). Measuring cross-cultural differences of ethnic groups within nations: Convergence or divergence of cultural values? The case of the United States. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 29, 2–10. doi:10.1080/08961530.2016.1227758 Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 600–615. doi:10.1108/01437730510633692 158 Dickson, M. W., Castaño, N., Magomaeva, A., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2012). Conceptualizing leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 47, 483– 492. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.002 Dillman, S. W. (2004). Leading in the Land of Oz: Cross-cultural study of servant leadership in Australia. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org (UMI No. 3136215) Doran, C. J., & Littrell, R. F. (2013). Measuring mainstream US cultural values. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 261–280. doi:10.1002/jmcd.12036 Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business, 47, 504–518. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.004 Durand, J., Massey, D. S., & Pren, K. A. (2016). Double disadvantage: Unauthorized Mexicans in the U.S. labor market. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 666(1), 78–90. doi:10.1177/0002716216643507 Eggerth, D. E., DeLaney, S. C., Flynn, M. A., & Jacobson, C. J. (2012). Work experiences of Latina immigrants: A qualitative study. Journal of Career Development, 39, 13–30. doi:10.1177/0894845311417130 Ehrhart, M. G. (2012). Self-concept, implicit leadership theories, and follower preferences for leadership. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220, 231–240. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000117 Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories "in the wild": Taking stock of information159 processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 858-881. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.005 Espinosa-Hernández, G., Bissell-Havran, J., & Nunn, A. (2015). The role of religiousness and gender in sexuality among Mexican adolescents. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 887–897. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.990951 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2013). G*Power. Retrieved from:http://www.gpower.hhu.de/ Fischer, R., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Whence differences in value priorities? Individual, cultural, or artifactual sources. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47, 1127– 1144. doi:10.1177/0022022110381429 Fitzsimmons, S. R. (2013). Multicultural employees: A framework for understanding how they contribute to organizations. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 525–549. doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0234 Flynn, M. A. (2014). Safety & the diverse workforce. Professional Safety, 59(6), 52–57. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Foley, N. (2014). Mexicans in the making of America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Frost, D. E. (2016). Development of implicit leadership theories prior to training or employment. Journal of Applied Business Research, 32, 555–568. doi:10.19030/jabr.v32i2.9596 Gelfand, M. J., Aycan, Z., Erez, M., & Leung, K. (2017). Cross-cultural industrial organizational psychology and organizational behavior: A hundred-year journey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 514. doi:10.1037/apl0000186 160 Gillet, J., Cartwright, E., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Selfish or servant leadership? Evolutionary predictions on leadership personalities in coordination games. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 231–236. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.003 Gonzalez-Barrera, A. (2015). More Mexicans leaving than coming to the US. Washington, DC, Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org Gonzales, N. A., Germán, M., Kim, S. Y., George, P., Fabrett, F. C., Millsap, R., & Dumka, L. E. (2008). Mexican American adolescents' cultural orientation, externalizing behavior and academic engagement: The role of traditional cultural values. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1-2), 151-164. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9152-x Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Greenfield, P. M., & Quiroz, B. (2013). Context and culture in the socialization and development of personal achievement values: Comparing Latino immigrant families, European American families, and elementary school teachers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 108–118. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2012.11.002 Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY: Paulist Press. Grisaffe, D. B., VanMeter, R., & Chonko, L. B. (2016). Serving first for the benefit of others: Preliminary evidence for a hierarchical conceptualization of servant 161 leadership. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 36, 40–58. doi:10.1080/08853134.2016.1151303 Guerrero, L., & Posthuma, R. A. (2014). Perceptions and behaviors of Hispanic workers: A review. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 616–643. doi:10.1108/JMP-072012-0231 Gupta, A., Leong, F., Valentine, J. C., & Canada, D. D. (2015). A meta-analytic study: The relationship between acculturation and depression among Asian Americans. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83, 372–385. doi:10.1111/ajop.12018 Gutiérrez, R. A. (2017). Mexican immigration to the United States. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.013.146 Hanges, P. J., Aiken, J. R., Park, J., & Su, J. (2016). Cross-cultural leadership: Leading around the world. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 64-69. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.013 Harms, P. D., & Spain, S. M. (2016). Children's stories as a foundation for leadership schemas: More than meets the eye. In C. Peus, S. Braun, & B. Schyns (Eds.), Leadership lessons from compelling contexts (Vol. 8; pp. 301–325). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Harrington, J. R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2014). Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 7990–7995. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317937111 Heidrich, B., Németh, K., & Chandler, N. (2016). Running in the family–Paternalism and familiness in the development of family businesses. Vezetéstudomány-Budapest Management Review, 47(11), 70-82. doi:10.14267/VEZTUD.2016.11.08 162 Hoffman, S., Marsiglia, F. F., & Ayers, S. L. (2015). Religiosity and migration aspirations among Mexican youth. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 16, 173–186. doi:10.1007/s12134-014-0342-8 Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. The Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 81–94. doi:10.5465/ame.1993.9409142061 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., Garibaldi de Hilal, A. V., Malvezzi, S., Tanure, B., & Vinken, H. (2010). Comparing regional cultures within a country: Lessons from Brazil. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 336–352. doi:10.1177/0022022109359696 Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2013). Values survey module 2013 manual. Unpublished instrument. Retrieved from http://www.laits.utexas.edu/orkelm/kelmpub/VSM2013_Manual.pdf Horenczky, G., Jasinkaja-Lahti, I., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2013). Mutuality in acculturation: Toward an integration. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 22, 205–213. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000150 House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 163 House, R., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. (2001). Project GLOBE: An introduction. International Association for Applied Psychology, 5, 489–505. doi:10.1111/14640597.00070 Howell, J. P., De la Cerda, J., Martinez, S. M., Prieto, L., Bautista, J. A., Ortiz, J., & Mendez, M. J. (2007). Leadership and culture in Mexico. Journal of World Business, 42, 449–462. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2007.06.006 Huang, K., Calzada, E., Cheng, S., Barajas-Gonzalez, R. G., & Brotman, L. M. (2016). Cultural adaptation, parenting and child mental health among English Speaking Asian American immigrant families. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 48(4), 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10578-016-0683-y Hungerman, D. M. (2014). The effect of education on religion: Evidence from compulsory schooling laws. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 104, 52–63. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2013.09.004 Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 19-51. doi:10.2307/2657288 Inglehart, R., Basáñez, M., Díez-Medrano, J., Halman, L., & Luijkx, R. (2004). Human values and beliefs: A cross-cultural sourcebook. Delegación Coyoacán, México: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. Instituto National de Estadística y Geografía. (2017). México en cifras: Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave. Retrieved from: http://www.beta.inegi.org.mx/app/areasgeograficas/?ag=30 164 Jack, R. E., Caldara, R., & Schyns, P. G. (2012). Internal representations reveal cultural diversity in expectations of facial expressions of emotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 19–25. doi:10.1037/a0023463 Jack, R. E., & Schyns, P. G. (2015). The human face as a dynamic tool for social communication. Current Biology, 25, 621–643. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.05.052 Jackson, T. (2016). Paternalistic leadership: The missing link in cross-cultural leadership studies? Cross Cultural Management, 16(1), 3–7. doi:10.1177/1470595816637701 Jian, G. (2012). Does culture matter? An examination of the association of immigrants' acculturation with workplace relationship quality. Manage Communication Quarterly, 26(2), 295–321. doi:10.1177/0893318912440178. Kanagui-Muñoz, M., Garriott, P. O., Flores, L. Y., Cho, S., & Groves, J. (2012). Latina/o food industry employees' work experiences: Work barriers, facilitators, motivators, training preferences, and perceptions. Journal of Career Development, 39, 118–139. doi:10.1177/0894845311400412 Karl, K., Peluchette, J. V. E., & Hall, L. M. (2016). Employee beliefs regarding the impact of unconventional appearance on customers in Mexico and Turkey. Employee Relations, 38(2), 163-181. doi:10.1108/ER-05-2015-0083 Kashima, Y. (2016). Cultural dynamics. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 93–97. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.019 Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000) Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers. 165 Keskin, B. (2013). The recent explicit use of theory in empirical studies on acculturation of children. Early Child Development and Care, 183, 163–169. doi:10.1080/03004430.2012.665050 Kim, E., Yamaguchi, A., Kim, M., & Miyahara, A. (2015). Effects of taking conflict personality on conflict management styles across cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 143–149. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.004 Kim, Y. M., Newhill, C., & Lopez, F. (2013). Latino acculturation and perceived educational achievement: Evidence for a bidimensional model of acculturation among Mexican-American children. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23, 37–52. doi:10.1080/10911359.2012.739531 Knight, G. P., Gonzales, N. A., Saenz, D. S., Bonds, D. D., German, M., Deardorff, J., & Updegraff, K. A. (2010). The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale for adolescents and adults. Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 444–481. doi:10.1177/0272431609338178 Knight, G. P., & Carlo, G. (2012). Prosocial development among Mexican American youth. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 258–263. doi:10.1111/j.17508606.2012.00233.x Knight, G. P., Basilio, C. D., Cham, H., Gonzales, N. A., Liu, Y., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2014). Trajectories of Mexican American and mainstream cultural values among Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(12), 2012– 2027. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9983-8 Knight, G. P., Carlo, G., Basilo, C. D., & Jacobson, R. P. (2015). Familism values, perspective taking, and prosocial moral reasoning: predicting prosocial tendencies 166 among Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(4), 717–727. doi:10.1111/jora.12164 Knowles, E. D., Morris, M. C., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2001, October). Culture and the process of person perception: Evidence for automaticity among East Asians in correcting for situational influences on behavior. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc., 27, 1344–1356. doi:10.1177/01461672012710010 Krumm, S., Grube, A., & Hertel, G. (2013). The Munster work value measure. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 532–560. doi:10.1108/JMP-07-2011-0023 Kunst, J. R., Thomsen, L., Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2015). "We are in this together": Common group identity predicts majority members' active acculturation efforts to integrate immigrants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1438–1453. doi:10.1177/0146167215599349 Kuo, B. C. H. (2014). Coping, acculturation, and psychological adaptation among migrants: a theoretical and empirical review and synthesis of the literature. Health Psychology & Behavioural Medicine, 2(1), 16–33. doi:10.1080/21642850.2013.843459 Ladhari, R., Souiden, N., & Choi, Y. H. (2015). Culture change and globalization: The unresolved debate between cross-national and cross-cultural classifications. Australasian Marketing Journal, 23(3), 235-245. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2015.06.003 Lavy, S., Littman-Ovadia, H., & Boiman-Meshita, M. (2017). The wind beneath my wings: effects of social support on daily use of character strengths at work. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(4), 703–714. doi:10.1177/1069072716665861 167 Liberman, L. (2014). The impact of a paternalistic style of management and delegation of authority on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in Chile and the US. Innovar, 24(53), 187–196. doi:10.15446/innovar.v24n53.43944 Licht, A. N., Goldschmidt, C., & Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Culture rules: The foundations of the rule of law and other norms of governance. Journal of Comparative Economics, 35, 659–688. doi:10.1016/j.jce.2007.09.001 Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: validation of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 254–269. doi:10.1016/jeaqua.2014.12.002 Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006 Littrell, R. F., & Cruz Barba, E. (2013). North and South Latin America: Influence of values on preferred leader behaviour in Chile and Mexico. Journal of Management Development, 32, 629–656. doi:10.1108/JMD-04-2013-0055 Lopez, G. (2015). Hispanics of Mexican origin in the United States, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/15 /hispanics-of-mexican-origin-inthe-united-states-2013/ Lopez, J. S. (2013). Motivational needs as indicators of acculturation of Mexican immigrants in the southwest United States. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1357125242. (UMI No. 3560644) 168 Madlock, P. E. (2018). The influence of socialization on citizens of Mexico working in the US on an H-1B Visa: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 18(1). doi:10.33423/jop.v18i1.1319 Martínez Méndez, R., Muñoz, V., Serafín, J. G., Muñoz, V., & Monserrat, M. A. (2013). Leadership styles and organizational effectiveness in small construction businesses in Puebla, Mexico. Global Journal of Business Research, 7(5), 47–56. Retrieved from https://www.theibfr.com/gjbr/ Massey, D. S., Durand, J., & Pren, K. A. (2015). Border enforcement and return migration by documented and undocumented Mexicans. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41, 1015–1040. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2014.986079 May, S. F., Flores, L. Y., Jeanetta, S., Saunders, L., Valdivia, C., Arévalo Avalos, M. R., & Martinez, D. (2014). Latina/o immigrant integration in the rural Midwest: Host community resident and immigrant perspectives. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 3, 23–39. doi:10.1037/lat0000029 Maznevski, M. L., Gomez, C. B., DiStefano, J. J., Noorderhaven, N. G., & Wu, P. C. (2002). Cultural Dimensions at the Individual Level of Analysis: The Cultural Orientations Framework. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2(3), 275–295. doi:10.1177/147059580223001 Michaud, J., Lituchy, T. R., Acosta, M., Romero, F. V., Velez-Torres, F., & Díaz, E. R. (2019). Effective leadership in Mexico: An extension of the LEAD project. Journal of African Business, 20(1), 72-90. doi:10.1080/15228916.2019.1583936 169 Midgley, D., Venaik, S., & Christopoulos, D. (2018), Culture as a configuration of values: An Archetypal Perspective. Research in Experimental Economics, 20, 6388. doi:10.1108/S0193-230620180000020004 Ming, H. S. (2005). Servant leadership and its effect on church organization. (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (UMI No. 3169049) Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012). Is national culture a meaningful concept? Cultural values delineate homogeneous national clusters of in-country regions. CrossCultural Research, 46, 133–159. doi:10.1177/1069397111427262 Mittal, R., & Dorfman, P. W. (2012). Servant leadership across cultures. Journal of World Business, 47, 555-570. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.009 Morgan Consoli, M. L., & Llamas, J. D. (2013). The relationship between Mexican American cultural values and resilience among Mexican American college students: A mixed methods study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 617– 624. doi:10.1037/a0033998 Morgan Consoli, M. L, Llamas, J. D., Cabrera, A. P., Noriega, E., & Gonzalez, N. (2014). An exploratory study of thriving in Latina/o undergraduate students in the US. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 48(1), 106-118. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ Morgan Consoli, M. L., Llamas, J., & Consoli, A. J. (2016). What's values got to do with it? Thriving among Mexican/Mexican American college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 44, 49–64. doi:10.1002/jmcd.12036 Nelson, L. (2003). An exploratory study of the application and acceptance of servantleadership theory among Black leaders in South Africa. (Doctoral dissertation). 170 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org (UMI No. 3086676) Nieri, T., & Bermudez-Parsai, M. (2014). Gap or overlap? Parent-child acculturation differences in Mexican immigrant families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 36, 413 –434. doi:10.1177/0739986314552047 Nieri, T., Grindal, M., Adams, M., Cookston, J., Fabricius, W., Parke, R., & Saenz, D. (2016). Reconsidering the "acculturation gap" narrative through an analysis of parent-adolescent acculturation differences and youth problem behavior in Mexican American families. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 1919–1944. doi:10.1177/0192513x14551175 Ng, V., Woo, S. E., Tay, L., & Foster, J. (2016). Examining variability in values attributed to culture: Using personality as a relative benchmark. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 47, 981–996. doi:10.1177/0022022116651333 Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625-632. doi:10.1007/s10459010-9222-y Ojeda, L., & Piña-Watson, B. (2014). Caballerismo may protect against the role of machismo on Mexican day laborers' self-esteem. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 288–295. doi:10.1037/a0033450 Oliveira, K. A. C. (2016). Children's implicit leadership theories in middle childhood: Christian children's perceptions in the Cavite province. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 25(3), 251–272. doi:10.1080/10656219.2016.1237908 171 Öner, Z. H. (2012). Servant leadership and paternalistic leadership styles in Turkish business context: A comparative empirical study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33, 300–316. doi:10.1108/01437731211216489 Overmyer-Velázquez, M. (2013). Good neighbors and White Mexicans: Constructing race and nation on the Mexico-US border. Journal of American Ethnic History, 33(1), 5–34. doi:10.5406/jamerethnhist.33.1.0005 Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6 Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (UMI No. 3082719). Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2006). Leader–member exchange (LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(2), 264–279. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400185 Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34, 566–593. doi:10.1177/0149206308316063 Piña-Watson, B., Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., Dornhecker, M., Martinez, A. J., & Nagoshi, J. L. (2016). Moving away from a cultural deficit to a holistic perspective: Traditional gender role values, academic attitudes, and educational goals for Mexican descent adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 307–318. doi:10.1037/cou0000133 172 Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2005). Introduction: The second generation and the children of immigrants longitudinal study. Ethnic and Racial Studies, Special Issue: The Second Generation in Early Adulthood, 28, 983–999. doi:10.1080/01419870500224109 Rawat, P., & Lyndon, S. (2016). Effect of paternalistic leadership style on subordinate's trust: an Indian study. Journal of Indian Business Research, 8(4), 264–277. doi:10.1108/jibr-05-2016-0045 Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2014). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Reed, L. L., Vidar-Cohen, D., & Colwell, S. R. (2011). A new scale to measure executive servant leadership: Development, analysis, and implications for research. Journal of Business Ethics 101, 415–434. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0729-1 Riemer, H., Shavitt, S., Koo, M., & Markus, H. R. (2014). Preferences don't have to be personal: Expanding attitude theorizing with a cross-cultural perspective. Psychological Review, 121, 619–648. doi:10.1037/a0037666 Rodriguez, A., & Brown, A. (2014). Cultural differences: A cross-cultural study of urban planners from Japan, Mexico, the U.S., Serbia-Montenegro, Russia, and South Korea. Public Organization Review, 14(1), 35–50. doi:10.1007/s11115-012-02049 173 Romero, E. J. (2005). The effect of Hispanic ethnicity on the leadership process. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 28-43. Retrieved from https://www.regent.edu Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 49–71. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00048.x Rossberger, R. J., & Krause, D. E. (2014). Participative and team-oriented leadership styles, countries' education level, and national innovation: The mediating role of economic factors and national cultural practices. Cross-Cultural Research, 49, 1– 37. doi:10.1177/1069397114534825 Ruby, M. B., Falk, C. F., Heine, S. J., Villa, C., & Silberstein, O. (2012). Not all collectivisms are equal: Opposing preferences for ideal affect between East-Asian and Mexicans. American Psychological Association, 12, 1206–1209. doi:10.1037/a0029118 Rueden, C., Gurven, M., Kaplan, H., & Stieglitz, J. (2014). Leadership in an egalitarian society. Human Nature, 25, 538–566. doi:10.1007/s12110-014-9213-4 Ruiz, C. E., Hamlin, R. G., & Martinez, L. E. (2014). Managerial and leadership effectiveness as perceived by managers and non-managerial employees in Mexico. Human Resource Development International, 17, 258–276. doi:10.1080/13678868.2014.896127 174 Ruiz, C. E., Wang, J., & Hamlin, R. G. (2013). What makes managers effective in Mexico? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34, 130–146. doi:10.1108/01437731311321904 Ruiz, C. E., & Hamlin, R. G. (2018). Perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness in Argentina and Mexico: a comparative study of effective and ineffective managerial behaviour. International Journal of Management Practice, 11(1), 123. doi:10.1108/EJTD-01-2019-0004 Rumbaut, R. G. (2015). Assimilation of immigrants. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 81–87. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.31109-6 Rupert, J., Jehn, K. A., van Engen, M. L., & de Reuver, R. S. (2010). Commitment of cultural minorities in organizations: Effects of leadership and pressure to conform. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 25-37. doi:10.1007/s10869009-9131-3 Russel, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23, 145–157. doi:10.1108/01437730210424084 Saxena, A. (2014). Workforce diversity: A key to improve productivity. Procedia Economics and Finance, 11, 76-85. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00178-6 Samnani, A., Boekhorst, J. A., & Harrison, J. A. (2012). Acculturation strategy and individual outcomes: Cultural diversity implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 323–335. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.04.001 175 Samnani, A. K., Boekhorst, J. A., & Harrison, J. A. (2013). The acculturation process: Antecedents, strategies, and outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 166–183. doi:10.1111/joop.12012 Saucier, G., Kenner, J., Iurino, K., Bou Malham, P., Chen, Z., Thalmayer, A. G., & Çankaya, B. (2015). Cross-cultural differences in a global "survey of world views." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(1), 53–70. doi:10.1177/0022022114551791 Schafran, A., & Monkkonen, P. (2017). Beyond Chapala and Cancún: Grappling with the impact of American migration to Mexico. Migraciones Internacionales, 6(21), 223-258. doi:10.17428/rmi.v6i21.758 Schedlitzki, D., Ahonen, P., Wankhade, P., Edwards, G., & Gaggiotti, H. (2017). Working with Language: A Refocused Research Agenda for Cultural Leadership Studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(2), 237–257. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12100 Schwadel, P. (2015). Explaining cross‐national variation in the effect of higher education on religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 54(2), 402-418. doi:10.1111/jssr.12187 Schwadel, P. (2016). Does higher education cause religious decline?: A Longitudinal analysis of the within-and between-person effects of higher education on religiosity. The Sociological Quarterly, 57(4), 759-786. doi:10.1111/tsq.12153 Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6 176 Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi,&G. Yoon, G. (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods and applications (pp. 85–119). London, England: Sage. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology, 48, 23–47. doi:10.1080/026999499377655 Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1), 5–13. doi:10.1177/0022022113490830 Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268-290. doi:10.1177/0022022101032003002 Schwartz, S. H., Benet-Martinez, V., Knight, G. P., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., Des Rosiers, S. E, & Szapocznick, J. (2014). Effects of language assessment on the measurement of acculturation: measurement equivalence and cultural frame switching. Psychological Assessment, 26, 100–114. doi:10.1037/a0034717 Sexton, J. D. (1979). Education and acculturation in highland Guatemala. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 10(2), 80-95. doi:10.1525/aeq.1979.10.2.05x1224b Shalka, T. R. (2017). The impact of mentorship on leadership development outcomes of international students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(2), 136. doi:10.1037/dhe0000016 Shondrick, S. J., & Lord, R. G. (2010) Implicit leadership and followership theories: Dynamic structures for leadership perception, memory, and leader-follower 177 processes. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 25 (pp. 1–33). Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com Smith, S. J. (2015). Risky sexual behavior among young adult Latinas: Are acculturation and religiosity protective? The Journal of Sex Research, 52, 43–54. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.821443 Spears, L. C. (2002). Tracing the past, present, and future of servant-leadership. Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, 1–16. Retrieved from: http://civicleadership.lipscomb.edu/uploads/41763.pdf Steel, P., & Taras, V. (2010). Culture as a consequence: A multivariate meta-analysis of the effect of individualism and country characteristics on work-related cultural values. Journal of International Management, 16, 211–233. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2010.06.002 Steers, R. M., Sanchez-Runde, C., & Nardon, L. (2012). Leadership in a global context: New directions in research and theory development. Journal of World Business, 47, 479–482. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.001 Sullivan, G. M., & Artino Jr, A. R., (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likerttype scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541–542. doi:10.4300/JGME-5-4-18 Sun, P. Y. (2013). The servant identity: Influences on the cognition and behavior of servant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 544-557. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.03.008 178 Tang, C., & Naumann, S. E. (2015). Paternalistic leadership, subordinate perceived leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management & Organization, 21, 291–306. doi:10.1017/jmo.2014.84 Taras, V. (2008). Work-related acculturation: Change in individual work-related cultural values following immigration (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing (Accession No. NR44545) Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2013). Work related acculturation: Change in individual work-related cultural values following immigration. The International Journal of Human Resources, 24(1), 130–151. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.672446 Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2011). Three decades of research on national culture in the workplace: Do the differences still make a difference. Organizational Dynamics, 40(3), 189-198. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.04.006 Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2016). Does country equate with culture? Beyond geography in the search for cultural boundaries. Management International Review, 56(4), 455-487. doi:10.1007/s11575-016-0283-x Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. Chicago, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing. U.S. Census (2014). Facts for features: Hispanic heritage month 2014: Sept. 15–Oct. 15. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov 179 U.S. Census (2016). FFF: Mes de la herencia hispana del 2016. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov U.S. Census (2017a). Race and Hispanic or Latino origin: 2010. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov U.S. Census (2017b). Characteristics of people by language spoken at home: 2006-2010 American community survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov U.S. Census (2017c). Race and Hispanic or Latino: 2010 – County – County Subdivision and Place. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov U.S. Census (2017d). Place of birth for the foreign-born population in the United States: Universe: Foreign-born population excluding population born at sea: 2006-2010 American community survey selected population tables. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov U.S. Census (2017e). Household language by households in which no one 14 and over speaks English only or speaks a language other than English at home and speaks English "very well': Universe: Households: 2006-2010 American community survey selected population tables. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37, 1228–1261. doi:10.1177/0149206310380462 Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 249–267. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1 180 Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2015). Compassionate love as a cornerstone of servant leadership: An integration of previous theorizing and research. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 119-131. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2085-z Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2010). Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1294–1315. doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.96 Venaik, S., & Midgley, D. F. (2015). Mindscapes across landscapes: Archetypes of transnational and subnational culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9), 1051-1079. doi:10.1057/jibs.2015.11 Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., Brown, R., & Bond, M. H. (2016). Beyond the "east–west" dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 966–1000. doi:10.1037/xge0000175 Vuong, Q. H., & Napier, N. K. (2015). Acculturation and global mindsponge: An emerging market perspective. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 49, 354–367. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.06.003 Ward, C., & Geeraet, N. (2016). Advancing acculturation theory and research: The acculturation process in its ecological context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 98–104. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.021 Weaver, C. N. (2014). Work attitudes of Mexican Americans: A decade of improvement. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 36, 329–343. doi:10.1177/0739986314540124 Weber, D. A. (2015). "Different plans": Indigenous pasts, the Partido Liberal Mexicano, and questions about reframing binational social movements of the twentieth 181 century. Social Justice, 42(3/4), 10–28. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com Wong-Mingli, D. J., Kessler, E. H., Khilji, S. E., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2014). Crosscultural comparison of cultural mythologies and leadership patterns. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 3, 79–101. doi:10.1108/SAJGBR-09-20120110 Zikic, J. (2015). Skilled migrants: Career capital as a source of competitive advantage: implications for strategic HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 1360–1381. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.981199 Zolfaghari, B., Möllering, G., Clark, T., & Dietz, G. (2016). How do we adopt multiple cultural identities? A multidimensional operationalization of the sources of culture. European Management Journal, 34, 102–113. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2016.01.003 182 Appendix A: Permission to Use The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale George Knight Sat 7/21/2018 9:27 AM To: Alonso Duarte Re: PhD Dissertation Using The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale Dear Alonso, There are only a three modifications I would support. First, the gender roles subscale has not been very useful and I would support excluding it from the Mexican American values. Second, several subscale (familism support, familism obligations, and familism referent) or (familism support, familism obligations, familism referent, and respect) have been used to form a composite measure of familism values. The latter of these two ways to create a familism composite is the better of the two options. Third, one could use only the Mexican American values subscales or only the mainstream values subscales in their research. The Mexican American values subscales have been used most often and most successfully. I would definitely not support any attempts to trim items from any subscale or to modify the response alternatives or scoring procedures. Some research would like to trim items to reduce the length of the measure. However, such a strategy usually threatens the content validity of the measure. We have done extensive development and psychometric work on this measure. The original items were based on multiple focus group research with a substantial sample of Mexican American parents and adolescents (separate focus groups for parents and adolescents). This was followed by the trimming and/or revision of potential items based upon the focus group feedback. We did this to ensure that we captured the essence of the values from community embers perspective and to ensure we had items representing the breadth of the psychological constructs being assessed. This was followed by psychometric examination of participant responses to the modified item set to ensure that each items was assessing the desired subscale construct and that each item was psychometrically sound. This set of modified items was then trimmed to produce the final set of items that assessed the full breadth of the subscale constructs. This last stem in the measure construction also incorporated focus group data and psychometric analyses to ensure that we had produce a measure that demonstrated crosslanguage measurement equivalence in English and Spanish and measurement equivalence for parents and adolescents. Subsequently, we have demonstrated longitudinal measurement equivalence of these final items across 5th, 7th, 10th, and 12th grades in a representative sample of Mexican American youth. Some researcher would like to modify the response scale and scoring to create consistency with other measures being administered to participants. The one attempt to do this with our measure (that I know of) was not very successful because the resulting 183 scores had reduced variability due to the truncated scores created by a truncated set of response alternatives. The research focused on how Mexican and Mexican American participant use response scales suggest that reducing the number of response alternatives (say from a 5-point to a 4-point response scale) is particularly inconsistent with the typical usage of response alternatives in these populations. If I were to consider supporting any response scale adjustment it would only be to increase the number of response alternatives (i.e., to a 7-point response scale). However, even in this case there is a downside in that you cannot compare the subscale scores to the broader literature using the MACVS. I know this may be disheartening to you, but the acculturation literature has a long history of attempts to use measures that may display one element of good psychometrics at the expense of other elements. For example, some research have tried to measure participant's level of acculturation with a few items that assess very related features of this construct (i.e., language use). While you may be able to create a three or four item scale on the use of the English language (or Spanish language) that displays somewhat adequate internal consistence, such a measure is not likely measure the broad range of content relevant of assessing acculturation level. If the considerations I note above make your use of the MACVS impossible, I suggest that you do not use the MACVS rather than using a modified version that "may" threaten the full utility of the measure. I wish you the best in your research endeavor. George George P. Knight, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor From: Alonso Duarte Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 9:12:46 AM To: George Knight Subject: Re: PhD Dissertation Using The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale Dear Dr. Knight, You gave me permission in the past to use and reproduce the The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale for Adolescents and Adults. I need to modify the instrument so I can combine it with 3 other instruments to measure acculturation and leadership preference. I 184 will be conducting a pilot to assess the psychometric properties of the combined instrument. If necessary, I may need to modify the instrument further. May I have your permission to modify the instrument and if necessary, after the pilot study, modify the instrument further? Should you agree, I will reproduce this email as an appendix to my proposal to the IRB at Walden University. Thank you for your consideration Alonso Duarte From: George Knight Date: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:44 AM Subject: Re: PhD Dissertation Using The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale To: Alonso Duarte Dear Alonso, You are welcome to use our measure (see attached publication). Please let me know what you find. Best Wishes, George George P. Knight, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor From: Alonso Duarte Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 6:42:27 PM To: George Knight Subject: PhD Dissertation Using The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale Dr. Knight, My name is Alonso Duarte and I am a PhD candidate at Walden University in US. 185 I am in the process of writing my PhD dissertation, and I would like to use The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale for Adolescents and Adults. The purpose of my quantitative comparative study utilizing a survey is to (1) investigate the effects of acculturation on the cultural values, work-related cultural values, and leadership style preferences among generations of Mexican immigrants, and (2) compare these findings with U.S.-born Caucasians. Literature indicates that Mexican have a paternalistic style leadership, which differs from US styles. Can I have your permission to use your scale in my dissertation? Thank you in advance Alonso Duarte, MBA 186 Appendix B: Permission to Use Work Related Value Assessment Vasyl Taras Fri 7/20/2018 7:19 PM To: Alonso Duarte RE: PhD dissertation using Work Related Value Assessment Dear Alonso, Yes, you have my permission to use, reproduce, and modify the instrument as needed for your study. Good luck with your research! Vas Dr. Vas Taras Associate Professor of International Business Program Director Master's of Science in International Business XCulture Project Founder and Coordinator Fellow of the Academy of International Business, Southeast USA Bryan School of Business and Economics University of North Carolina at Greensboro From: Alonso Duarte Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 7:10 PM To: Vasyl Taras Subject: Re: PhD dissertation using Work Related Value Assessment Dear Dr. Taras, You gave me permission in the past to use and reproduce the work-related value assessment you developed a few years ago. I need to modify the instrument so I can combine it with 3 other instruments to measure acculturation and leadership preference. I will be conducting a pilot to assess the psychometric properties of the combined instrument. If necessary, I may need to modify the instrument further. May I have your permission to modify the instrument and if necessary, after the pilot study, modify the instrument further? Should you agree, I will reproduce this email as an appendix to my proposal to the IRB at Walden University. Thank you for your consideration Alonso Duarte 187 Appendix C: Permission to Use Paternalism Scale Hi Alonso, Please see the attached two papers. You may certainly use our scale. Good luck with your research! Ekin Ekin K. Pellegrini, Ph.D. | Director of Executive Education Director, Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) Program Associate Professor of Global Leadership and Management University of Missouri-St. Louis From: Alonso Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 7:37 PM To: Ekin Pellegrini Cc: Teresa Scandura Alonso Duarte Subject: Permission to use published scale. Dr. Pellegrini, My name is Alonso Duarte and I am a PhD candidate at Walden University in US. I am in the process of writing my PhD dissertation. I would like permission to use the scale you developed along with Dr. Scandura to measure paternalism in your 2006 study titled Leader–member exchange (LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. The purpose of my quantitative comparative study utilizing a survey is to (1) investigate the effects of acculturation on the cultural values, work-related cultural values, and leadership style preferences among generations of Mexican immigrants, and (2) compare these findings with U.S.-born Caucasians. Literature indicates that Mexicans have a paternalistic style leadership, which differs from US styles. Can I have your permission to use your scale in my dissertation? Thank you in advance Alonso Duarte, MBA 188 Appendix D: Permission to Use Servant Leadership Scale To: Alonso Duarte Re: Instrument Dear Mr. Duarte Congratulation on your pursuit in higher education. It's with pleasure that I grant you permission to use and modify my instrument for the use of your pilot study and if necessary do further modification after the pilot study. Please do send me a copy of your findings and recommendation after your defense along with the final draft of the instrument With all best wishes. Sincerely Herman S. Ming Dr. Herman S Ming J.P., L.Inst.M.P On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Alonso Duarte wrote: Dear Dr. Ming My name is Alonso Duarte and I am a PhD candidate at Walden University in US. I am in the process of writing my PhD dissertation, and I would like to use the servant leadership scale you developed for your dissertation in 2005 here at Walden University. The purpose of my quantitative comparative study utilizing a survey is to (1) investigate the effects of acculturation on the cultural values, work-related cultural values, and leadership style preferences among generations of Mexican immigrants, and (2) compare these findings with U.S.-born Caucasians. Literature indicates that Mexicans have a paternalistic style leadership, which differs from US styles who may prefer a servant leadership style. I need to modify the instrument so I can combine it with 3 other instruments to measure acculturation and leadership preference. I will be conducting a pilot to assess the psychometric properties of the combined instrument. If necessary, I may need to modify the instrument further. 189 May I have your permission to use and modify the instrument, and if necessary, after the pilot study, modify the instrument further? Should you agree, I will reproduce this email as an appendix to my proposal to the IRB at Walden University. Thank you for your consideration Alonso Duarte 190 Appendix E: Invitation to Participate in Survey Hello, You are invited to participate in a pilot survey research study aimed at examining how the leadership preferences of Mexican immigrants compare to those of Mexicans living in Mexico and White Americans in the United States. I hope that you can contribute to the research by agreeing to answer the survey questions. The researcher conducting this study is PhD candidate Alonso R. Duarte at Walden University. You might already know the researcher as the human resources specialist at Child Start Inc. or an accounting professor at Solano Community College, but this study is separate from that role. Participation in this study is voluntary. You are free to accept or turn down the invitation. There is no obligation to be part of in the study and you will not be treated differently if you decide not to be part of the study. If you chose to participate, now, you can still change your mind later. You may stop at any time. If you do not wish to participate, I thank you for your time and apologize for intruding. If you agree to participate you will be asked to complete a web-based survey with a brief demographic questionnaire and 90 questions in it. It should take around 30 minutes to complete. To be eligible to participate you need to be a Mexican immigrant, or at least one of your parent s needs to be Mexican immigrant, or be White American born in the United States. You also need to be at least 18 years old and live or work in either Solano County or Napa County. Privacy: Personal or identifying information will not be collected and the raw data will not be made public nor will be seen by anyone, except the researcher. While you may know the researcher as the human resources specialist at Child Start Inc. or as an accounting professor at Solano Community College, even the researcher will not know who you are. All data collected electronically will be stored in a password protected hard drive and kept in a locked cabinet. All data collected in paper form will be transferred to electronic form by the researcher and the original form will be stored in a locked box. 191 The researcher will be the only one with the key and password. Data will be kept for a period of at least 5 years, as required by the university. Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study: Participating in this study involves some risk of the minor discomforts that can be encountered in daily life, such as stress. Being in this study would not pose risk to your safety or wellbeing. There is no compensation for completing the questionnaire. The results of study will be presented in scholarly articles and submitted for publication in academic journals. The potential benefits of the study include having a greater understanding of what Mexican immigrants expect from their supervisors and potentially enhance the relationship between managers and the employees improving work productivity and efficiency. At the same time Mexican immigrants may have a better understanding of the challenge they may face as they enter the workforce. Questions and Concerns: If you have any questions or need clarification about the research, you may contact the researcher at (415) 713-3995 or alonso.duarte@waldenu.edu. If you want to talk privately about your rights as a participant, you can call the Research Participant Advocate at my university at (612) 312-1210 (U.S.A number 001-612-312-1210) or via email address IRB@mail.waldenu.edu. Walden University's approval number for this study is IRB will enter approval number here and it expires on IRB will enter expiration date. Please keep this consent form for your records. Obtaining Your Consent If you feel you understand the study well enough to make a decision about it, please indicate your consent by taking the survey by clicking the link below. -------LINK------ 192 Appendix F: Survey Questionnaire Demographics The demographic information will help select participants who meet the requirements of the study. Please answer the following questions about your self Gender M F Race ___________ Age _____ Country of Birth _________________ In which country did you grow up? ________________________ At what age did you migrate to the U.S.? _______ City of Residence _______________ Number of family members living in the U.S. ___ Education Level _______________ Number of years living in the U.S. ____ Job Industry _____________________ Job Title ___________________________ Parental information will help identity generational information of participants. Not required from Mexican participants. Please answer the following questions about your Mother Race _________Country of Birth ____________ Number of years living in the U.S. ___ Please answer the following questions about your Father Race __________ Country of Birth ____________ Number of years living in the U.S. ___ 193 Leadership Preferences The following 33 statements describe the leadership style of the ideal supervisor. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers. Using a scale from 1 through 5, tell me how much you agree with the statements about your ideal supervisor. 1 Not at all 2 A little 3 Somewhat 4 Very Much 5 Completely Servant Leadership – Sense of Oneness 1. ______ Has many people visiting him with their problems because he listens to them 2. ______ Pays great attention to details when someone talks to him, and remembers the details in future conversations. 3. ______ Truly attempts to understand the pain and suffering which members are going through. 4. ______ Makes every effort to identify individuals who are going through difficulties. 5. ______ Continually identifies the hurt members and attempts to heal the wounds. 6. ______ Always looks after members who are hurt and offers emotional support. 7. ______ Is keenly aware of what is going on in the workplace. 8. ______ Is aware of all the issues and problems involving his or her employees Servant Leadership – Sense of Direction 9. ______ Is most effective in getting voluntary compliance and cooperation through one-onone talks 10. ______ Always seeks to discuss and involve others in his thinking. 11. ______ Is very sharp and clear in defining what we ought to do (mission). 12. ______ Articulates our dream very well and offers a plan on what to do. 13. ______ Sees beyond the day-to-day routines and suggests what to do for the future. 14. ______ Has an un-paralleled foresight to see through the time and future Servant Leadership – Feeling of Empowerment 15. ______ Is the person to be trusted? 16. ______ Demonstrates a strong commitment to serving the needs of members. 194 17. ______ Does everything in his/her power to nurture for personal and professional growth of the members 18. ______ Recognizes the potential values of individual member and helps them realize their potential in every possible way 19. ______ Strives to build a strong community, linking all employees 20. ______ Has already demonstrated the ability to build a common community which everyone loves to become part of Paternalistic Leadership 21. ______ Is interested in every aspect of his/her employees' lives. 22. ______ Creates a family environment in the workplace. 23. ______ Consults his/her employees on job matters. 24. ______ Is like an elder family member (father/mother, elder brother/sister) for his/her employees. 25. ______ Gives advice to his/her employees on different matters as if he/she were an elder family member. 26. ______ Makes decisions on behalf of his/her employees without asking for their approval. 27. ______ Knows each of his/her employees intimately (e.g., personal problems, family life, etc.). 28. ______ Exhibits emotional reactions in his/her relations with the employees; doesn't refrain from showing emotions such as joy, grief, anger. 29. ______ Participates in his/her employees' special days (e.g., weddings, funerals, etc.). 30. ______ Tries his/her best to find a way for the company to help his/her employees whenever they need help on issues outside work (e.g.. Setting up home, paying for children's tuition) 31. ______ Expects his/her employees to be devoted and loyal, in return for the attention and concern he/she shows them. 32. ______ Gives his/her employees a chance to develop themselves when they display low performance. 33. ______ Believes he/she is the only one who knows what is best for his/her employees. 195 Work Related Values The following 12 statements describe values as they relate to the work environment. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers. Using a scale from 1 through 5, tell me how much you believe that... 1 Not at all 2 A little 3 Somewhat 4 Very Much 5 Completely Status Attribution 34. ______ Older and more experienced managers are more effective than young managers with less experience 35. ______ Companies should be represented by senior high-status person even if he or she is not the most knowledgeable person about the situation 36. ______ Family background (achievements of parents or relatives) is good indicator of people's work effectiveness 37. ______ The rank and prestige of a university is a very good indicators of the performance of its graduates 38. ______ People in higher position should earn more even if they do not do more than those in lower positions 39. ______ Employees with more seniority should earn more even if they do not perform better than others Power Distance 40. ______ Employees should not question the decisions of supervisors 41. ______ Managers should make decisions without having to consult with employees 42. ______ Is best not to show your disagreement with your boss 43. ______ It makes sense that managers have special privileges such as big offices or luxury business cars 44. ______ I would feel uncomfortable calling my supervisor by his or her first name 45. ______ I may feel nervous when I am around my boss Gender Egalitarianism 46. ______ Is better to have a man in a high-level managerial position than a woman 47. ______ Business meetings run more effectively when chaired by a man 196 48. ______ It is better when the man earns money and provides for his family and the woman stays home and takes care of the kids and the home 49. ______ There are some jobs in which a man can always do better than a woman 50. ______ A woman should not focus on her career because it leaves little time for her family Acculturation The next 45 statements are about what people may think or believe. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers. Using a scale from 1 through 5, tell me how much you believe that . . . 1 Not at all 2 A little 3 Somewhat 4 Very Much 5 Completely Mainstream Values – Material Success 51. ______ The more money one has, the more respect they should get from others. 52. ______ Children should be taught that it is important to have a lot of money 53. ______ Owning a lot of nice things makes one very happy. 54. ______ Money is the key to happiness 55. ______ The best way for a person to feel good about him or herself is to have a lot of money. Mainstream Values – Independence and self-reliance 56. ______ The most important thing parents can teach their children is to be independent from others. 57. ______ As children get older their parents should allow them to make their own decisions. 58. ______ When there are problems in life, a person can only count on him or herself. 59. ______ Parents should encourage children to solve their own problems 60. ______ People should learn how to take care of themselves and not depend on others. Mainstream Values – Competition and personal achievement 61. ______ One must be ready to compete with others to get ahead. 62. ______ Parents should encourage children to do everything better than others. 63. ______ Parent should teach their children to compete to win 64. ______ Personal achievements are the most important things in life Traditional Mexican Values Religion 65. ______ One's belief in God gives inner strength and meaning to life. 66. ______ Parents should teach their children to pray. 197 67. ______ It is important to follow the Word of God. 68. ______ God is first; family is second. 69. ______ If everything is taken away, one still has their faith in God. 70. ______ It is important to thank God every day for all one has. 71. ______ Religion should be an important part of one's life. Traditional Mexican Values Respect 72. ______ No matter what, children should always treat their parents with respect. 73. ______ Children should respect adult relatives as if they were parents. 74. ______ Children should always honor their parents and never say bad things about them. 75. ______ It is important for children to understand that their parents should have the final say when decisions are made in the family. 76. ______ Children should never question their parents' decisions. 77. ______ Children should be on their best behavior when visiting the homes of friends or relatives. 78. ______ Children should follow their parents' rules, even if they think the rules are unfair. 79. ______ Children should always be polite when speaking to any adult. Traditional Mexican Values – Familism (support) 80. ______ Parents should teach their children that the family always comes first. 81. ______ Family provides a sense of security because they will always be there for you. 82. ______ It is always important to be united as a family. 83. ______ It is important to have close relationships with aunts/uncles, grandparents, and cousins. 84. ______ Holidays and celebrations are important because the whole family comes together. 85. ______ It is important for family members to show their love and affection to one another. Traditional Mexican Values – Familism (obligation) 86. ______ Children should be taught that it is their duty to care for their parents when their parents get old. 87. ______ Children should always do things to make their parents happy. 88. ______ If a relative is having a hard time financially, one should help them out if possible. 198 89. ______ A person should share their home with relatives if they need a place to stay. 90. ______ Older kids should take care of and be role models for their younger brothers and sisters 91. ______ Parents should be willing to make great sacrifices to make sure their children have a better life. Traditional Mexican Values – Familism (referent) 92. ______ When it comes to important decisions, the family should ask for advice from close relatives. 93. ______ Children should be taught to always be good because they represent the family. 94. ______ A person should always think about their family when making important decisions. 95. ______ It is important to work hard and do one's best because this work reflects on the family. 199 Appendix G: Relationship between Survey Items and Research Questions Research Questions Survey Items 1 Work-related cultural values differences between Mexican immigrants and U.S.-born Caucasians 2 Work-related cultural values differences among generations of Mexican immigrants 4 Leadership differences among generations of Mexican immigrants 3 Preferred leadership style differences between Mexicans and U.S.-born Caucasians 34 – 45 46 – 90 46 – 90 1 – 33 200 Appendix H: Correlations between Servant and Paternalistic Leadership Items L L E E H H A A P P C C F F S S G G B B Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa L Item 1 1 L Item 3 .379 ** 1 E Item 5 .435 ** .392 ** 1 E Item 6 .407 ** .451 ** .692 ** 1 H Item 2 .589 ** .400 ** .505 ** .552 ** 1 H Item 13 .468 ** .380 ** .612 ** .676 ** .529 ** 1 A Item 18 .166 ** .442 ** .237 ** .263 ** .209 ** .309 ** 1 A Item 16 .251 ** .207 ** .470 ** .433 ** .284 ** .539 ** .363 ** 1 P Item 20 .218 ** .387 ** .251 ** .340 ** .240 ** .467 ** .455 ** .239 ** 1 P Item 21 .198 ** .236 ** .398 ** .344 ** .335 ** .382 ** .447 ** .303 ** .376 ** 1 C Item 19 .221 ** .379 ** .296 ** .331 ** .163 * .443 ** .633 ** .351 ** .535 ** .377 ** 1 C Item 11 .164 * .478 ** .237 ** .267 ** .210 ** .281 ** .618 ** .234 ** .397 ** .373 ** .533 ** 1 F Item 9 .208 ** .286 ** .342 ** .304 ** .307 ** .358 ** .388 ** .457 ** .264 ** .385 ** .314 ** .351 ** 1 F Item 25 .156 * .343 ** .248 ** .286 ** .170 ** .341 ** .621 ** .285 ** .465 ** .428 ** .538 ** .559 ** .379 ** 1 S Item 22 .270 ** .451 ** .380 ** .461 ** .283 ** .494 ** .629 ** .456 ** .593 ** .513 ** .611 ** .495 ** .401 ** .542 ** 1 S Item 27 .182 ** .433 ** .272 ** .315 ** .205 ** .318 ** .496 ** .224 ** .410 ** .225 ** .536 ** .381 ** .276 ** .513 ** .469 ** 1 G Item 28 .241 ** .382 ** .408 ** .441 ** .330 ** .508 ** .500 ** .377 ** .435 ** .481 ** .477 ** .442 ** .420 ** .579 ** .612 ** .529 ** 1 G Item 31 .249 ** .429 ** .395 ** .398 ** .231 ** .409 ** .590 ** .344 ** .455 ** .498 ** .584 ** .558 ** .352 ** .652 ** .635 ** .567 ** .699 ** 1 B Item 12 .230 ** .358 ** .323 ** .386 ** .250 ** .520 ** .532 ** .352 ** .446 ** .353 ** .505 ** .580 ** .252 ** .505 ** .589 ** .446 ** .502 ** .572 ** 1 B Item 30 .211 ** .460 ** .368 ** .425 ** .346 ** .454 ** .537 ** .318 ** .453 ** .422 ** .511 ** .447 ** .322 ** .489 ** .589 ** .600 ** .624 ** .693 ** .543 ** 1 Pa Item 4 .302 ** .235 ** .533 ** .517 ** .296 ** .505 ** .150 * .304 ** .226 ** .280 ** .177 ** 0.113 .241 ** .154 * .245 ** 0.123 .285 ** .173 ** .176 ** .237 ** 1 Pa Item 7 .352 ** .206 ** .524 ** .568 ** .403 ** .618 ** .169 ** .599 ** .200 ** .250 ** .186 ** .137 * .461 ** .222 ** .308 ** .187 ** .394 ** .249 ** .289 ** .280 ** .496 ** 1 Pa Item 8 .347 ** .161 * .438 ** .440 ** .393 ** .521 ** .199 ** .539 ** .208 ** .294 ** .220 ** .128 * .473 ** .209 ** .284 ** .211 ** .348 ** .254 ** .208 ** .251 ** .396 ** .697 ** 1 Pa Item 10 .309 ** .227 ** .438 ** .394 ** .331 ** .516 ** .170 ** .416 ** .266 ** .301 ** .238 ** .160 * .423 ** .222 ** .285 ** .253 ** .387 ** .303 ** .310 ** .330 ** .417 ** .541 ** .606 ** 1 Pa Item14 .169 ** -0.044 .258 ** .194 ** .196 ** .311 ** 0.039 .361 ** -0.036 .152 * 0.081 -0.009 .302 ** 0.029 0.059 -0.036 0.078 0.009 -0.003 0.062 .318 ** .491 ** .359 ** .312 ** 1 Pa Item15 .319 ** .186 ** .451 ** .454 ** .377 ** .525 ** .141 * .567 ** .204 ** .214 ** .250 ** 0.086 .345 ** .176 ** .328 ** .228 ** .340 ** .242 ** .199 ** .290 ** .414 ** .606 ** .578 ** .551 ** .564 ** 1 Pa Item 17 .237 ** .305 ** .398 ** .418 ** .308 ** .483 ** .548 ** .370 ** .390 ** .362 ** .571 ** .390 ** .290 ** .418 ** .546 ** .469 ** .535 ** .499 ** .472 ** .472 ** .297 ** .336 ** .311 ** .260 ** .127 * .305 ** 1 Pa Item 23 .277 ** .390 ** .344 ** .462 ** .314 ** .513 ** .480 ** .395 ** .505 ** .436 ** .475 ** .399 ** .279 ** .526 ** .629 ** .423 ** .607 ** .562 ** .453 ** .428 ** .301 ** .321 ** .307 ** .241 ** 0.051 .309 ** .538 ** 1 Pa Item 24 .227 ** .165 ** .323 ** .380 ** .256 ** .424 ** .292 ** .352 ** .282 ** .347 ** .365 ** .183 ** .315 ** .405 ** .418 ** .341 ** .423 ** .348 ** .291 ** .389 ** .271 ** .399 ** .322 ** .360 ** .300 ** .469 ** .341 ** .413 ** 1 Pa Item 26 .301 ** .232 ** .461 ** .424 ** .365 ** .461 ** .159 * .457 ** .255 ** .312 ** .237 ** .139 * .406 ** .299 ** .393 ** .319 ** .443 ** .316 ** .249 ** .346 ** .329 ** .504 ** .488 ** .573 ** .388 ** .666 ** .239 ** .270 ** .448 ** 1 Pa Item 29 0.031 -0.098 -0.104 -0.072 0.011 -0.008 -0.029 0.100 -.140 * 0.002 0.034 -0.121 .193 ** -0.060 -0.108 -0.091 -0.119 -.164 * -.149 * 0.021 0.064 .151 * .221 ** 0.095 .421 ** .219 ** -0.055 -.190 ** 0.091 0.089 1 Pa Item 32 .312 ** .252 ** .429 ** .426 ** .348 ** .505 ** .292 ** .502 ** .312 ** .375 ** .327 ** .220 ** .394 ** .324 ** .433 ** .358 ** .477 ** .461 ** .332 ** .439 ** .325 ** .492 ** .399 ** .447 ** .335 ** .497 ** .420 ** .391 ** .386 ** .477 ** 0.048 1 Pa Item 33 .320 ** .379 ** .508 ** .511 ** .379 ** .565 ** .365 ** .429 ** .373 ** .398 ** .341 ** .279 ** .337 ** .394 ** .512 ** .403 ** .586 ** .537 ** .437 ** .518 ** .398 ** .490 ** .424 ** .482 ** .137 * .474 ** .443 ** .476 ** .420 ** .552 ** -0.111 .593 ** 1 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlations Between Servant and Paternalistic Leadership Item s Paternalistic Leadership Servant Leadership 201 Appendix I: Means of Paternalistic Leadership Scale Individual Scores P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 U.S. 3.15 2.33 2.22 2.33 1.47 1.97 3.83 3.65 3.15 2.07 1.83 2.67 3.23 NM 3.21 3.05 2.90 2.87 2.52 3.02 3.79 3.89 3.61 3.02 2.06 3.40 3.56 FM 3.33 3.07 2.48 2.64 2.58 2.91 3.78 3.86 3.49 2.73 1.98 3.14 3.75 SM 3.43 2.67 2.51 2.49 2.14 2.93 4.18 4.33 3.79 2.76 1.99 3.26 3.71 Total 3.29 2.77 2.53 2.58 2.17 2.72 3.91 3.95 3.53 2.65 1.97 3.13 3.57 US – U.S Born Caucasians; NM – Native Mexicans; FM – 1st-Generation Mexican Immigrants; SM – 2nd-Generation Mexican Immigrants. P1. Exhibits emotional reactions in his/her relations with the employees; doesn't refrain from showing emotions such as joy, grief, anger. P2. Is interested in every aspect of his/her employees' lives. P3. Knows each of his/her employees intimately (e.g., personal problems, family life, etc.). P4. Participates in his/her employees' special days (e.g., weddings, funerals, etc.). P5. Believes he/she is the only one who knows what is best for his/her employees. P6. Gives advice to his/her employees on different matters as if he/she were an elder family member. P7. Gives his/her employees a chance to develop themselves when they display low performance. P8. Consults his/her employees on job matters. P9. Expects his/her employees to be devoted and loyal, in return for the attention and concern he/she shows them. P10. Is like an elder family member (father/mother, elder brother/sister) for his/her employees. P11. Makes decisions on behalf of his/her employees without asking for their approval. P12. Tries his/her best to find a way for the company to help his/her employees whenever they need help on issues outside work (e.g. Setting up home, paying for children's tuition) P13. Creates a family environment in the workplace.