Revisiting culture and language in global management teams

Abstract

In research on international business (IB) and management, a narrow view of language and culture has given way to a greater understanding of the complexity of the interplay of language- and culture-related issues in today’s world. The “linguistic turn” in the social sciences along with the more recent unravelling of the deterministic cultural dimension has led to reexamining the importance of language and culture in the social construction of reality. The key role played by multicultural, multilingual teams in organizations operating on a global scale has spawned much research on the impact of language and cultural diversity within teams. Some scholars have focused on the negative aspects of diversity implying that language standardization, through the adoption of lingua franca policies and practices, is the most appropriate strategy for collaboration across languages and borders. Others have uncovered the positive side of this diversity; they argue the case for the coexistence of different working languages together with communication practices that facilitate the contextualization necessary for sense-making processes in multilingual teams. This has led a growing number of scholars within different research fields to take the “multilingual turn” exploring novel ideas and concepts emerging around the phenomena of multilingualism, thereby advancing the discussion in IB and management studies. Applying these emerging notions to a study of a multilingual team in an international organization, we question the widely held assumptions about language, culture, and identity and show the need to refresh the way in which these concepts are framed when examining team performance.

Keywords

Diversity identity multicultural teams multilingua franca multilingual teams

Introduction

In research on international business (IB) and management, a narrow and limited view of language and culture has given way to a greater understanding of the complexity of the interplay of language- and culture-related issues in today’s world. The “linguistic turn” in the social sciences along with the more recent unravelling of the deterministic cultural dimension has led to reexamining the importance of language and culture in the social construction of reality.

The key role played by multicultural, multilingual teams in organizations operating on a global scale has spawned much research on the impact of language and cultural diversity within such teams.

Some scholars have focused on the negative aspects of such diversity implying that language standardization, through the adoption of lingua franca policies and practices, is the most appropriate strategy for collaborating across languages and borders. Others have uncovered the positive side of this diversity; they argue the case for the coexistence of different working languages together with communication practices that facilitate the contextualization necessary for sense-making processes in multilingual teams.

This has led a growing number of scholars within different research fields to take the “multilingual turn,” exploring novel ideas and concepts emerging around the phenomena of multilingualism (Janssens and Steyaert, 2014; Makoni and Pennycook, 2012; Martin-Jones et al., 2012) and multiculturalism (Benet-Martinez and Hong, 2014; Brannen and Lee, 2014), thereby advancing the discussion among scholars in IB and management studies.

Applying these emerging notions to a study of a multilingual team in an international organization, we question the widely held assumptions about language, culture and identity and show the need to refresh the way in which these concepts are framed when examining team performance. We posit that this change must be reflected in the perception the individual has on self and others as integrating a limited, and often misleading, framework may block—or even handicap—the individual. This narrow framework has also negatively impacted organizations as they tend to consider this diversity a barrier to team performance.

Adopting the multilingual franca approach for the study of multicultural global teams as outlined by Janssens and Steyaert (2014: 634), our study explores “a new way of understanding ‘multilingualism,’ one that overcomes monolingual blindness by supporting translingual practices.” This has been hailed as a novel approach for studying language use in organizations (Brannen et al., 2014).

In the same way, we argue that, if multicultural teams are to be effective, predetermined representations of “cultural” behavior, associated with specific “national” cultures, should give way to a wider approach (Brannen and Lee, 2014). Similar to the “monolingual blindness” referred to above, culture when defined by the closed constructs of the “national–cultural dimension” does not provide a sufficient framework to understand the cultural mapping of the individual.

In this article, we build on recent research findings to demonstrate how linguistic and cultural diversity contributes to positive team outcomes if viewed as a resource rather than a barrier. The first part sets out the theoretical background around the concepts of culture, identity, and language. Next, we consider how a certain orientation to linguistic and cultural diversity, if positively enacted in a team, can enhance team cohesion and performance. In the next section, the methodology of our empirical study is described and is followed by our findings to illustrate the argument of our article.

Theoretical background

Linguistic and cultural diversity among team members in international organizations has long been considered as complex, problematic, and difficult to manage. Recent research, however, has revealed more nuanced findings, suggesting the need for a new paradigm in order to evaluate the effective functioning of global management teams. In this article, we move away from the limitations of the essentialist model of language and culture, by taking the multilingual turn to further develop the concepts of hybrid team cultures, intersectionality, and fault lines in order to posit that diversity both within and between individuals positively impacts team interaction.

Essentialism

In cross-cultural management studies and management disciplines in general, the notion of culture has traditionally been analyzed through the confines of national cultures and conceptualized as static, bounded, homogeneous, and deterministic. Such essentialist understandings of culture have been shown to be fallacious (Holden, 2002) as they fail to account for “cultural diversity, change over time and space, shifting multiple intersecting identities and agency” (Nathan, 2015: 102; Tully, 1995). Although this neat, essentialist paradigm provides an attractive model for organizational studies, overlooking the complex variables that impact the notion of cultural identity disserves the understanding of the functioning of multicultural teams in the globalized contexts in which organizations operate today.

In the field of language and communication studies, traditional assumptions have reflected the same essentialist notions, with the implicit or explicit acceptance of standardized national models of culture and language. However, the borrowing by linguists of concepts from the social sciences and philosophy has led to an understanding of identities as “multiple, conflictual, negotiated and evolving” (Canagarajah, 2004: 117). Distancing himself from mainstream thinking in linguistics, this scholar writes: “we have travelled far from the traditional assumption in language studies that identities are static, unitary, discrete and given” (2004: 117). Because of the prevalence of these traditional assumptions, the field has been held back by a “monolingual bias” (Makoni and Pennycook, 2012: 449), as seen in the plethora of studies based on the unitary, uniform identity of the “native speaker” operating according to standardized norms prevalent in a given national culture.

In the educational field also, long-held assumptions are being dismissed and linguists are questioning the notion of standard national language as an appropriate model and object of study. Notably, Kramsch critically pointed out that traditionally, a learner’s communicative competence has been measured against benchmarks of grammatical, pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and discourse competence and is evaluated for his/her ability to fit into the categories of accuracy, fluency, and cultural content as spoken by the monolingual speaker of a standard national language (Kramsch, 2012). Today, linguists (Canagarajah, 2007; Kramsch, 2012) are arguing that in a world of increased mobility and fast-changing demographics, students need to learn “to move between languages and to understand and negotiate the multiple varieties of codes, modes, genres, registers, and discourses” that they will encounter in the real world (Kramsch, 2012: 107). Therefore, the idealized notion of the native speaker is no longer appropriate as the sole model in language learning. Breaking with this traditional monolingual bias, Stephen May brought to the fore the notion of “the multilingual turn” in second language acquisition at the 2012 annual conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics (May, 2013). This questioning by scholars of the monolingual foundation of theoretical and applied linguistics has been qualified as “revolutionary” (Kramsch, 2012). Opening the paradigm as it does, provides new perspectives as to the development of an individual’s linguistic identity and professional competences.

The literature on diversity management has been critiqued on similar grounds. A positivistic approach in which identities are conceptualized as “ready-made, fixed, clear-cut, easily measurable categories” underlies these studies (Janssens and Zanoni, 2005; Litvin, 1997; Zanoni et al., 2010: 13). Through such a prism, identities are viewed as naturalized or essentialized objective entities, and their socially constructed nature together with the role played by context is not acknowledged (Zanoni et al., 2010: 14).

In the international organizations of today, with the focus being on successful interaction between individuals working in multilingual/multicultural teams (Holden, 2002), the essentialist paradigm based on a knowledge of national languages and the cultures associated with them is no longer sufficient. Just as Holden recommended dispensing with national culture as a “sacred variable” (2008: 249) in cross-cultural management research, as a corollary we recommend dispensing with the “monolingual” and the native speaker as benchmarks in applied linguistics and intercultural communication research.

Rather than viewing language, culture, and identity through an essentialist, normative, and reductionist lens, we argue in this article that a new paradigm is required to study the true impact of language factors as they affect performance in global management teams.

Moving away from essentialism: New paradigms

The language identities rooted in national/regional usage that are commonly ascribed to individuals, such as, for example, monolingual or bilingual, or native or non-native speaker of a given language, are therefore oversimplified labels and/or attributions. They do not account for real communication behavior in multicultural contexts, which involves maneuvering between languages and drawing from varied communicative repertoires (Fredriksson et al., 2006). Globalization has uprooted these traditional language identities; the traditional concept of language itself has been “dislodged and destabilized,” to quote Blommaert (2010: 2).

Studies on the impact of linguistic and cultural diversity on communication in multicultural environments provide some of the theoretical background for this article and offer a more nuanced approach to the constructs of language and culture (Gumperz, 2003; Scollon and Scollon, 2001). From within the broad field of intercultural communication theory, these interactional sociolinguists focus on pragmatic competences and the way an individual adapts in interactions. Their studies show many different aspects of personal background, beyond national culture, that influence features of talk and condition the expectations and reactions of individuals. In the words of Gumperz, the concept of culture refers to “the personal background that might account for variations in individual verbal behaviors, whether they be attributable to a national, racial, or ethnic culture or the culture of a particular social class, generation or gender” (2003: 226).

In his book A Critical Sociolinguistics of Globalization, Blommaert explores the notion of multiple linguistic resources surfacing because of globalization, which as he writes: “forces sociolinguistics to unthink (…) classic distinctions and biases and to rethink itself as a sociolinguistics of mobile resources, framed in terms of transcontextual networks, flows and movements” (2010: 1), and he continues:

Movement of people across space is therefore never a move across empty spaces. The spaces are always someone’s space, and they are filled with norms, expectations, conceptions of what counts as proper and normal (indexical) language use and what does not count as such. (…) Big and small differences in language use locate the speaker in particular indexical and ascriptive categories (related to identity and role). (2010: 6)

Heteroglossia is another useful concept to help understand what contributes to effective functioning of individuals in multi- or transcultural settings. Bakhtin, the literary theorist and philosopher, emphasized the social and political dimensions of language, introducing the concept of heteroglossia, or the diversity of speech types within a given language. The following lines capture the usefulness of this concept in present-day research on diversity as a resource: “Language, whether monolingual or multilingual, carries social meanings through phonological, lexical, grammatical and discourse level forms. These forms index various aspects of individuals’ and communities’ social histories, circumstances, and identities” (Bailey, 2012: 505). This echoes the more recent stream of research on intersectionality.

These intersecting aspects of identity and how they impact interpersonal interaction and group dynamics have been explored by theorists who have been developing the notion of “intersectionality” (Zander et al., 2010) and “thirdness” (Kramsch, 2009). This contributes to our argument on viewing diversity as a resource as it points to the hidden multiple identities within an individual. What matters is how one situates oneself as well as how one is viewed/identified by the other(s)—and the interspace of the rapport that is built between the different actors. In the postmodern approach, the focus is placed on negotiating identities, which rules out the essentializing of language, culture, and identity. Depending on the context and the individuals involved, aspects of identity may come to the fore and voice-over other components of identity according to need. Rather than focusing on fixed categories, people fluidly draw on the resources of their multiple identities to orientate their behavior in a specific situation (Yagi and Kleinberg, 2011).

Language diversity: A new perspective on linguistic identity—from essentialism to pragmatism

The fact that language diversity exists within individuals as well as between them mirrors the observations made by Brannen and Thomas (2010: 213) about latent competences of biculturals in organizations. It has been recognized that biculturals and individuals having a multiple linguistic identity possess unique skills and abilities, which make them more effective in global business environments. As sense-making and meanings are socially constructed, rooted in interaction, and embedded in their contexts, the skill-sets of such individuals are particularly valuable. In the same way as country-specific knowledge is now seen as insufficient, language use based on predetermined representations of the native speaker is equally insufficient for effective interaction in multilingual settings. Users who identify with this limited country-specific approach may be negatively impacted in their limited use of fixed codes.

Demographic changes and increased mobility, together with the possibilities offered by information and communication technology, have given people access to partial language repertoires. These include bits of the different languages in which they have varying levels of literacy (Blommaert and Dong, 2010). This opens up an increased, yet often untapped, reservoir of language diversity within each individual. As Blommaert observes, the prefix “trans” is therefore more suited to the situation today than the prefix “multi,” which implies the multiplication of distinct languages (Blommaert, 2010: 1).

The ability to summon different sets of linguistic resources is also central to the concept of heteroglossia. From this perspective, to create social meaning, a speaker may switch languages, alternate between a dialect and a national standard, shift register, or speak monolingually (Bailey, 2012: 504). Indeed, effective communication and the ability to negotiate the social world stems from an individual’s use of these “heteroglossic” sets of linguistic resources (Bakhtin, 1981).

Kramsch’s distinction between modern and postmodern approaches to multilingual identity allows us to explore this phenomenon further. She defines a modern version of multilingualism as “the ability to use several linguistic systems in everyday life and to draw on several cultural contexts of experience in order to put forth several identities, such as immigrant, employee, mother, woman, Spanish speaker or English speaker” (2012: 116). Multilingual speakers are thus potentially empowered as they negotiate their identities in these various social contexts.

Multilingua franca approach to linguistic identity

Research on the use of English as a lingua franca has shown similarities with the features of multilingual communities where changing communicative contexts require the adaptation of performance strategies (Canagarajah, 2007). English as a lingua franca is said to be a multilingual way of using English as it is not based on the practices and representations of native speakers.

The article of Janssens and Steyaert (2014) introducing the notion of “a multilingual franca approach” to IB studies demonstrates that the relationship between globalization and language is more complex than most of the literature in IB would suggest, as the focus on the advantages or hegemonic effects of English as a lingua franca has overshadowed other angles of inquiry. The main issue for these scholars is “to understand the process through which people use language, which is no longer considered a discrete, preformed and independent object” (Janssens and Steyaert, 2014: 625). They adopt a theory of multilingualism in which language is a social activity through which speakers express voice by mobilizing multiple linguistic resources. Makoni and Pennycook also define a lingua franca through the prism of multilingualism in which diverse elements are fused together, reflecting the personal experiences of each individual speaker. In such lingua franca multilingualism, or in short, in a multilingua franca, “languages are so deeply intertwined and fused into each other that the level of fluidity renders it difficult to determine any boundaries that may indicate that there are different languages involved” (Makoni and Pennycook, 2012: 447).

The multilingual turn no longer focuses on “language fluency” as defined by the limited criteria of formal competencies but on what contact with different languages and cultures can bring to an individual in terms of metacognitive skills. In the same vein, although the concept of bilingualism is well established in linguistics, for our purposes, the bilingual individual is interesting to consider from a broader perspective, as there is another dimension to their competence which overshadows the fact they master two (or more) specific language systems. “A bilingual person is not two mono-linguals in one person, but has an original language competency, integrating in a complex and creative way systems coming from two or more languages” (Pekarek-Doehler, 2009: 29; Grosjean, 1985). In addition to “language-specific” skills, these “language-general” skills are less obvious to pinpoint and measure and are therefore often overlooked in their overall professional profile. We argue, however, that these are the very competences that should be sought and developed.

Biculturals have this specific type of language-general competence, which goes beyond the narrow competence corresponding to the mastery of the idealized form of language as spoken by the native speaker which provides the yardstick for gauging linguistic competence. This ‘language general’ competence requires “more general cognitive skills such as cross-linguistic awareness, high levels of tolerance and emotional management” (Mughan, 2015: 81). (Language-specific competence on the other hand, based on an essentialist view of language and culture, refers to the ability to use language effectively in a particular national context.)

The view of multilingualism as a lingua franca contrasts sharply to concepts such as plural or multiple monolingualism. In the latter, languages are distinct, whereas in the case of lingua franca multilingualism, the boundaries between languages are blurred (Makoni and Pennycook, 2012: 446–447). The term “translanguaging” has been proposed (Garcia, 2009: 45; Martin-Jones et al., 2012: 10) to refer to “the multiple discursive practices in which multilingual speakers engage, as they draw on the resources within their communicative repertoires.” In a recent book appropriately subtitled The Multilingual Reality of Global Business Expansion (Piekkari et. al., 2014: 63), the authors state that it is “not just competence in the corporate language that matters but the set of languages that an individual may possess.”

In the next section, we develop this notion of “language sets” and build on the concept of language-general skills and how they play out in the context of multilingual teams.

Multilingual/multicultural teams

In the management literature on teams, many challenges associated with language diversity and the adoption of a common corporate language have been identified. The underlying assumption in the majority of these studies is that “language” and “culture” are stable, predetermined entities. For example, the distinction between “native speaker/non-native speaker,” widely used as a parameter in these studies, is problematic as it overlooks the complexity discussed in the sections above. First, it essentializes language as a fixed entity and does not allow for the diversity within one “native” standardized national linguistic code which manifests itself in a variety of dialects, accents, and lexical and grammatical usages. Second, it does not account for the diverse intersecting identities—(professional, generational, gender, etc.)—which influence the way any given individual uses language. So the concept “native speaker”, contested by linguists but widely used in communication and language studies as in IB studies, fails to account for the complexity of any given person’s language competence or linguistic identity.

Language as a divisive factor in teams: Essentialized identity constructs

Language can be a divisive factor in teams. One of the reasons for this is that language is a key factor in self and other categorization and a more important marker of an individual’s identity than age, gender, or race (Giles and Johnson, 1981). This can lead to either discrimination or status enhancement and perturb relations in teams (Neeley, 2012). The distinction between native speaker/non-native speaker discussed above also contributes to these negative effects. Much of the literature has identified problems that arise from the clustering that occurs causing subgroups to form along the fault lines of nationality and shared mother tongue (Charles, 2007: 275; Mäkelä et al., 2006). However, as individuals, whether in colocated or dispersed teams, are interdependent concerning the tasks to be accomplished, they need to be able to work together which requires building working relationships with each other. However, the categories and fault lines that emerge are detrimental to the interactions and teamwork required to accomplish the task at hand. Underlying tensions due to task-related difficulties can be exacerbated and brought to a head with language-based identity acting as a “lightning rod” in some teams (Hinds et al., 2014). In general, studies show that asymmetries in lingua franca fluency and in the common corporate language can contribute to an “us versus them” dynamic which is common in global teams and is detrimental to trust (Tenzer et al., 2014).

Other research (Lagerstrom and Andersson, 2003; Kassis-Henderson, 2005) has demonstrated that attitudes to language use and identity issues can impact negatively on interpersonal relations, trust, and the working atmosphere. The same can be said of divergent discursive practices which lead to negative categorization of the other, together with perceptions of incompetence and uncooperative attitudes (Rogerson Revell, 2007). Many of these attitudes and perceptions causing language to be a divisive factor and barrier stem from essentialized and stereotyped conceptions of language and culture discussed in the first part of this article.

Language as a cohesive factor in teams: Fluid identity constructs

Through exposure to diversity, and with the presence of “multilingual” team members, coworkers learn to understand and accept divergent discursive practices which, from becoming a divisive factor can, over time, lead to enhanced cooperation (Lauring and Selmer, 2010).

Some studies have pointed to the role language can play as a cohesive, rather than divisive factor. Socialization processes, which take place through verbal interaction, play an important role in consolidating working processes and building rapport and trust (Cohen and Kassis-Henderson, 2012). Research findings on teams show the problematic nature of language issues linked to socialization processes (Lagerstrom and Andersson, 2003; Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000; Kassis-Henderson, 2005). Knowing how to hold an informal conversation or to engage in “small talk” for building relationships between team members present challenges as they require a subtle and sensitive use of language. A study on building global virtual teams is a good illustration as it emphasizes the importance of “individual tolerance and experiences, social similarity, forms of socializing, caring talk, personal conversations, storytelling, humour, ritual and ceremony” (Henttonen and Blomqvist, 2005: 117). To attain such social similarity, individuals draw on the resources within their linguistic repertoire and their multiple identities (Virkkula-Räisänen, 2010).

Interpersonal communication of this nature is challenging because it depends on subjective elements, and therefore, a different type of language competence (language-general), which involves being able to hear and express nuances in tone and style beyond a “standardized” ability in any given language system. It also requires tolerance for divergent discursive practices and for fluency asymmetry. We argue that for language to become a cohesive factor, certain language-general competences, beyond language-specific competence, are required (Mughan, 2015).

However, beyond the obvious importance of the relationship-building dimension discussed above, language can also be a cohesive factor in unexpected, counterintuitive ways. Demonstrating this aspect, Holden (2002) identified the emotional solidarity in teams that builds up among non-native speakers of English who share the experience of facing the challenge of working in a foreign tongue. We hypothesize that this solidarity is the result of metacognitive abilities developed through exposure to, and reflection on, multicultural experiences. These coworkers, and not only the biculturals/multilinguals among them, have learnt to understand and accept divergent discursive practices. Part of this metacognitive ability is the ability to reflect on and learn from experience, and particularly experience that disconfirms expectations (Rosenblatt, 2013: 374):

Generally speaking, if expectations are met during cross-cultural contact, participants are more likely to respond habitually and practice behaviors they already know, whereas the experience of expectancy disconfirmation creates an opportunity to learn and develop cross-cultural capabilities.

This substantiates the notion that successful teams consist of individuals who have a positive orientation to change, and to learning new behaviors. As far as language is concerned, unexpected and unorthodox use of language is therefore an opportunity to learn and practice new behaviors. Therefore, successful teams today embrace practices associated with the multilingual turn, such as translanguaging and “micro-variation” discussed earlier. This also adds another dimension to findings pointing to the enhanced effectiveness of culturally diverse teams in studies of fault lines (Lau and Murnighan, 1998).

General factors contributing to positive outcomes in teams

Concerning the configuration of global international teams, certain factors contributing to positive outcomes need to be taken into account. First, for team composition, it is important to find the right balance to avoid clustering by nationality. On this point, studies have shown the importance of having a mix of monoculturals and bi- or multiculturals to prevent teams from the bias that may occur due to the domination of too many similar-minded people (Haas, 2006). Indeed, such domination is found to be the source of “fault lines” which jeopardize team cohesion (Earley and Mosakowski, 2000). In addition, biculturals and bilinguals are more effective than monoculturals in complex multicultural contexts due to their greater metacognitive ability (Brannen, 2009; Brannen and Thomas, 2010; Hong, 2010: 95; Thomas et al., 2008). In particular, they can leverage their “cultural meta-understanding,” or “culture-general” skills in contexts where they do not have specific intimate knowledge of the language or culture (Barner-Rasmussen, 2015: 148). All these factors contribute to the building of a shared team or “meta-identity” (Jehn and Bezrukova, 2010) which prevents subgroups from forming along cultural or linguistic fault lines (Barner-Rasmussen, 2015: 148).

To investigate language and culture competence in global management teams, there is a need to look not at fluency levels in one given language nor at in-depth knowledge of a particular national culture but at metacognitive abilities reflected in the knowledge of and exposure to multiple languages and cultures. We therefore recommend a shift from the native speaker/non-native speaker dichotomy to the multilingual/monolingual framework, which corresponds to the language-general/language-specific skill-set distinction.

Empirical study

Methodology

The illustrative empirical data for this article is taken from an ongoing case study of a multicultural, multilingual management team in a European business school.

With the internationalization of higher education institutions, studies of language and culture issues concerning students and faculty are increasing in number but, to our knowledge, no studies exist of the management teams that work across international borders in universities and business schools.

Owing to the sector of activity of this organization, and to the geographical context in Europe where a positive orientation to language plurality is expected, we anticipated both sensitivity to and interest in our project; the response was enthusiastic. Both authors have been members of the faculty for over two decades and our insider knowledge of the institution facilitated access to the team for organizing interviews and for the collection of written data such as email exchanges.

This team manages one of the master’s level programmes. It consists of 15 members, representing 10 nationalities. All team members speak at least one language in addition to their native tongue. There are no native English speakers on the team at present, which turned out to be a significant factor in the context of this study.

The team is geographically dispersed as the institution has campuses and runs integrated programmes in five European countries: France, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, and Italy. In addition, certain operations are coordinated with partner universities and business schools located in the United States, Mexico, India, Russia, and Thailand.

Data collection

We attended and audio-taped 2 days of planned formal meetings between the team representatives from the different European campuses (approximately 12 people during 16 hours, including pauses and coffee breaks).

Our analysis of written texts was based on email exchanges and formal documents, such as agendas and minutes of meetings.

To understand the wider social and historical context of the team and the biographical background of the members, we conducted and recorded interviews either face to face or by telephone. The interviews were semi-directive. We interviewed all the team members, either in French or English, and in some cases, mixing both languages depending on the initiative of the interviewee. The interviews lasted between 90 minutes and 60 minutes. Before the interviews and data collection, we listed the themes corresponding to our hypotheses and drew up an interview guide accordingly.

Hypotheses

H1: Language is a resource rather than a barrier in the team. Although the working language is reported to be English, team members draw on their knowledge of other languages in various ways.

H2: Language-general and culture-general skills/competencies are more valuable (i.e. they contribute more to the successful performance of the team) than language-specific and culture-specific skills.

H3: Multilingua franca competences are not recognized as such by individuals who possess them (or by organizations), because they have not been formulated/articulated as part of the required skill-set for individuals in international teams. Correspondingly, language-general and culture-general skills tend not to be a visible part of an individual’s skill-set.

Data analysis

“A multilingual franca approach to the linguistic performance of global teams,” outlined by Janssens and Steyaert (2014), has served as a source of inspiration for our study. Global teams, they argue, offer a particularly rich terrain as “they constitute so-called ‘intersections,’ the spaces where bi- and multilingual individuals with different national, cultural, functional, organizational backgrounds encounter each other and are in a position to negotiate the languages they use and interweave” (2014: 634). These scholars identify two possible research foci: the subject positioning of team members and the position of lingua franca English in a mixed language context (2014: 634). In this part of our article, we investigate both of these foci through an analysis of relevant data. An in-depth analysis of the language production of team members in meetings and email exchanges will be the topic of another article.

Findings and discussion

Subject positioning: Talking about language skills and the use of different languages

In answer to our initial question on their language profiles: (question: tell us about your language background, the languages you speak) several respondents mentioned only their mother tongue and “English of course,” choosing not to mention (or forgetting) that they also use other languages occasionally or have done so in the past; this we discover later by probing in the course of the interview. This is significant as it reveals a lack of awareness of the important role played in informal or small talk by switching to the language of one’s interlocutor, or using words from other language(s) shared by both speakers. It also suggests that only the mother tongue, or the main language learnt in an educational setting “counts” in an individual’s assessment of his/her language competence. One interviewee implicitly made this clear distinction between the native and school language on the one hand and the languages, or “bits of language,” acquired, or “picked up” through experience:

I know some basic Russian…I spent some time working in Russia…when you speak a bit in the local language it makes a relationship with people easier. so in my case not only do I know languages…but it is important that you can be in touch with other people; having the possibility to get to know the basics of language helps.

A French team member talking of relations with a Spanish colleague describes how elements from other languages than English are used on informal occasions to break down barriers and relax: “Sometimes I try to play with her and use words in Spanish, so we have English words and French words, so we have a mixed phrase and it’s fun.” This type of behavior in teams has often been observed, but the significance in this case is the fact that these two people share a knowledge of three languages and this contributes (to an extent to which they are seemingly unaware) to a rich working relationship.

On a different register, one German team member referred to the fact he had studied Latin which helped with his understanding of Italian and French: “Thanks to my Latin, I can understand Italian and French…but I need extra time to process everything.” The same may be the case for individuals in other teams, with other languages than Latin providing a similar resource.

The position of lingua franca English in a mixed language context

Preliminary data from our textual analysis of meetings and emails show many instances of translingual practices, or translanguaging. Code-switching—the alternating use of two languages in the same stretch of discourse—tends to occur on a superficial level of exchange (greetings and other routine functions). However, it is less significant than micro-variation within the same language, which characterizes talk on more serious, work-related matters. This variation is manifested in the use of styles, accents, and words within what appears on the surface to be the same language, namely “English” but is in fact “multilingua franca English.” Our data show how terms can take on new meanings and connotations which are momentarily shared within specific exchanges as speakers make use of their own and others’ multilingual resources.

Data from the interviews shows that although the explicit message about diverse language resources and practices between individuals is positive, there is tension within individuals between their pragmatic acceptance of language practices in the team and their idealistic expectations of what constitutes “good” language standards. These tensions stem from language-specific behavioral orientation (conformity to national norms and practices), whereas behavior shows most respondents have adopted a language-general approach (adaptability to diverse practices).

Some examples from the interviews illustrate this tension. When the interview was in French, the quotation is in the original version, followed by our translation into English.

Examples

“We work together in English but it is not really English.” “L’anglais qu’on utilise c’est une langue de travail, une langue de communication, pas la langue de Shakespeare.” Translation: “The English we use is a working language, a language of communication, not the language of Shakespeare.”

This remark was uttered by a French speaker in a rather apologetic tone, reflecting his view of national languages as cultural artefacts to be treated with respect.

In other instances, responses to questions concerning the use of English as the working language of the team reflect the contradiction between their fluid language use, their easy “no-complex” use of English as displayed in the interviews and the meetings we observed, and, as in the example below, their stereotypical images of English and the French language and speakers:

Example: On accent and the imperfect use of English:

C’est vrai qu’on n’a pas d’anglophone dans le sens anglais/anglais; on n’a pas de complexe—entre guillemets - à s’exprimer avec nos accents, notre vocabulaire pas tout à fait parfait, effectivement on est plus sur un pied d’égalité en parlant une langue commune.

Translation: “it’s true we have no English speaker in the sense of English/English; we don’t have any complexes - so to speak - in expressing ourselves with our accents, our not quite perfect vocabulary, in fact speaking a common language puts us on a more equal footing.”

The answer to the ensuing question about the importance of accent shows that the interviewer and the interviewee were on two different wavelengths. Whereas the interviewer was questioning the role played by accent in the process of communication (pragmatic role), the interviewee interpreted the question subjectively, essentializing language as an aesthetic artifact.

Pourquoi penses-tu que l’accent est important?

parce que j’adore la musique…j’ai choisi l’italien car je trouve que c’est une langue musicale…L’anglais parlé par un anglais est magnifique, c’est une langue sublime. C’est vrai quand tu le parles pas comme eux tu l’écorches un peu et ça fait un peu mal à l’oreille…c’est juste personnel.

Translation

why do you think accent is important?

“because I adore music (…) I chose Italian because it is a musical language (…) English spoken by an English person is magnificent, a sublime language. It is true that when you do not speak it like them you bruise it a bit and it hurts your ear (…) it’s just personal (…) after listening to his beautiful melody of a native English speaker you are a bit ashamed.”

By interjecting the words “it’s just personal,” almost apologetically, the respondent shows she is aware that this kind of subjective remark diverges from the direction the interview is taking. However, this type of digression offers a closer understanding of how perceptions of linguistic phenomena are linked to the subjectivity and personal background of each member.

In the following example, the English language is portrayed as the cultural heritage of those who speak it, whatever their national identity may be. Commenting on the fact there are no “native-English” speakers on the team, an Italian member says:

we all speak a language that is not ours…English is an international language…I take it for granted…even if you deal in English…it’s a third language . a way to communicate…it’s our cultural heritage…we don’t share the English cultural heritage.

Another example shows a purely pragmatic position:

“My English is a purely practical one…what matters is we must simplify…mostly using the same bunch of words.”

The same respondent explains the impact of diversity on working processes: “It is a source of effectiveness, we have to create processes and we learn every time.”

Advice to multilingual/multicultural global teams

The following remark was made by a Spanish member of the team in answer to the question “What advice would you give to a person joining a multicultural team for the first time?” With its insistence on the importance of context, the answer brings together many of the points made in our article:

The main thing is to try to understand the other, try to get to know the other…so when you say what do you think about this issue…try to get a full view…it’s not just what you are saying,…but if you know the related background…not just the personality…maybe you need to be more widely informed and have the full picture not just what people are saying but also in which context they are saying that and the importance of that. You must be aware of others’ background.

Conclusion

All in all, findings from the interviews show that, far from viewing language as a barrier, there is an affirmative will, on the team level, to use languages in their diversity as an explicit resource. Differences are embraced and confronted positively, as one member puts it “the team is positively stressed.” Overall, our data indicates that the competences of the team members are not primarily due to their country-specific skills (knowledge of culture and language—as exhibited in cultural frame-switching behavior) but are to a large part due to their wider language-general and culture-general skills or multilingua franca mind-set.

This article contributes to research on multilingual teams in several ways. First, by shifting the focus from language-as-barrier to language-as-resource, our approach views language as social practice and builds on studies in sociolinguistics applied to work settings in the globalized world, particularly the concept of a multilingua franca. Second, we contribute to nascent theory on a “language/culture-general” as opposed to “language/culture-specific” approach for understanding behavior and competence in organizations. Finally, we challenge mainstream assumptions about language competence, in particular, that of the native speaker as model for learners.

Our findings are relevant for human resources in organizations, particularly, recruitment criteria, foreign assignments, and training. We show that excellent proficiency in a given language (as testified by test scores obtained) may be less significant than wider metacognitive skills gained through exposure to multiple languages and cultures. Individuals tend to be identified in the workplace by labels—nationality, native speaker, monolingual, bilingual, etc.—which hide the multiple intersecting aspects of their identity. If these were to be taken into account, this complexity and diversity within and between individuals could be tapped as a resource having direct and positive implications for global organizations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bailey

(2012) Heteroglossia. In: Martin-Jones

Blackledge

Creese

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 499–507.

Bakhtin

(1981) In: Holquist

(ed.) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barner-Rasmussen

(2015) What do bicultural-bilinguals do in multinational corporations? In: Holden

Michailova

Tietze

(eds) The Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 79–85.

Benet-Martinez

Hong

Y-Y

(2014) The Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blommaert

(2010) The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blommaert

Dong

(2010) Language and movement in space. In: Coupland

(ed.) The Handbook of Language and Globalization. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 366–385.

Brannen

(2009) Culture in context: new theorizing for today’s complex cultural organizations. In: Nakata

(ed.) Beyond Hofstede: Cultural Frameworks for Global Marketing and Management. New York: Macmillan, pp. 81–100.

Brannen

Lee

(2014) Bridging cultural divides: traversing organizational and psychological perspectives in multiculturalism. In: Benet-Martinez Hong

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity. Oxford University Press, pp. 417–437.

Brannen

Marschan-Piekkari

Tietze

(2014) The multifaceted role of language in international business: unpacking the forms, functions and features of a critical challenge to MNC theory and performance. Journal of International Business Studies 45: 495–507.

10.

Brannen

Thomas

(2010) Bicultural individuals in organizations: implications and opportunity. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 10(1): 5–16.

11.

Canagarajah

(2004) Subversive identities, pedagogical safe houses, and critical learning. In: Norton

Toohey

(eds) Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 116–137.

12.

Canagarajah

(2007) Lingua franca English, multilingual communities and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 91(1): 923–939.

13.

Charles

(2007) Language matters in global communication: article based on ORA lecture, October 2006. Journal of Business Communication 44: 260–282.

14.

Cohen

Kassis-Henderson

(2012) Language use in establishing rapport and building relations: implications for international teams and management education. Revue Management et Avenir 55: 185–207.

15.

Earley

Mosakowski

(2000) Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of transnational team functioning. The Academy of Management Journal 43(1): 26–49.

16.

Fredriksson

Barner-Rasmussen

Piekkari

(2006) The multinational corporation as a multilingual organization. The notion of a common corporate language. Corporate Communication: An International Journal 11(4): 406–423.

17.

Garcia

(2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

18.

Giles

Johnson

(1981) The role of language in ethnic group relations. In: Turner

Giles

(eds) Intergroup Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 199–243.

19.

Grosjean

(1985) The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6(6): 467–477.

20.

Gumperz

(2003) Interactional sociolinguistics: a personal perspective. In Schiffrin

Tannen

Hamilton

(eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. paperback ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2003, pp. 215–228.

21.

Haas

(2006) Acquiring and applying knowledge in transnational teams: the roles of cosmopolitans and locals. Organization Science 17(3): 367–384.

22.

Henttonen

Blomqvist

(2005) Managing distance in a global virtual team: the evolution of trust through technology-mediated relational communication. Strategic Change 14: 107–119.

23.

Hinds

Neeley

Cramton

(2014) Language as a lightning rod: power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International Business Studies 45(5): 536–561.

24.

Holden

(2002) Cross-cultural Management: A Knowledge Management Perspective. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

25.

Holden

(2008) Reflections of a cross-cultural scholar: context and language in management thought. International Journal of Cross-cultural Management 8(2): 239–251.

26.

Hong

H-J

(2010) Bicultural competence and its impact on team Effectiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 10(1): 93–120.

27.

Janssens

Steyaert

(2014) Re-considering language from a cosmopolitan understanding: toward a multilingual franca approach in international business studies. Journal of International Business Studies 45: 623–639.

28.

Janssens

Zanoni

(2005) Many diversities for many services: theorizing diversity (management) in service companies. Human Relations 58(3): 311–340.

29.

Jehn

Bezrukova

(2010) The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 112(1): 24–42.

30.

Kassis-Henderson

(2005) Language diversity in international management teams. International Studies of Management and Organisation 35(1): 66–82.

31.

Kramsch

(2009) Third culture and language education. In: Cook

Wei

(eds) Contemporary Applied Linguistics. London: Continuum, pp. 233–254.

32.

Kramsch

(2012) Authenticity and legitimacy in multilingual SLA. Critical Multilingualism, an Interdisciplinary Journal 1(1): 107–128.

33.

Lagerstrom

Andersson

(2003) Creating and sharing knowledge within a transnational team—the development of a global business system. Journal of World Business 38: 84–95.

34.

Lau

Murnighan

(1998) Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review 23: 325–340.

35.

Lauring

Selmer

(2010) Multicultural organizations: common language and group cohesiveness. IJCCM 10(3): 267–284.

36.

Litvin

(1997) The discourse of diversity: from biology to management. Organization 4(2): 187–209.

37.

Mäkelä

Kalla

Piekkari

(2006) Interpersonal knowledge sharing within multinationals: homophily as a driver for clustering. In: Mäkelä

(ed.) Essays on Interpersonal Level Knowledge Sharing within the Multinational Corporation. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics, pp. A–277.

38.

Makoni

Pennycook

(2012) Disinventing multilingualism: from monological multilingualism to multilingual franca. In: Martin-Jones

Blackledge

Creese

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 439–453.

39.

Martin-Jones

Blackledge

Creese

(2012) Introduction: a sociolinguistics of multilingualism for our times. In: Martin-Jones

Blackledge

Creese

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 499–507.

40.

May

(2013) The Multilingual Turn, Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education. London: Taylor & Francis.

41.

Maznevski

Chudoba

(2000) Bridging space over time: global virtual dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science 11(5): 473–492.

42.

Mughan

(2015) Language and languages: moving from the periphery to the core. In: Holden

Michailova

Tietze

(eds) The Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 79–85.

43.

Nathan

(2015) A non-essentialist model of culture: implications of identity, agency and structure within multinational/multicultural organizations. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 15(1): 101–124.

44.

Neeley

(2012) Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science 24(2): 476–497.

45.

Pekarek-Doehler

(2009) Démythifier les compétences: vers une pratique écologique d’évaluation. In: Galatanu

Pierrard

Van Raemdonck

(eds) Construction du sens et acquisition de la signification linguistique dans l’interaction. Bruxelles: Peter Lang, pp. 19–39.

46.

Piekkari

Welch

(2014) Language in International Business: The Multilingual Reality of Global Business Expansion. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

47.

Rogerson Revell

(2007) Using English for international business: a European case-study. English for Specific Purposes 26: 103–120.

48.

Rosenblatt

Worthley

MacNab

(2013) From contact to development in experiential cultural intelligence education: the mediating influence of expectancy disconfirmation. Academy of Management: Learning & Education 12(3): 356–379.

49.

Scollon

(2001) Intercultural Communication. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

50.

Tenzer

Pudelko

Harzing

(2014) The impact of language barriers on trust formation in multinational teams. Journal of International Business Studies 45(5): 508–535.

51.

Thomas

Elron

Stahl

. (2008) Cultural intelligence: domain and assessment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(123): 124–143.

52.

Tully

(1995) Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Virkkula-Räisänen

(2010) Linguistic repertoires and semiotic resources in interaction: a Finnish manager as a mediator in a multilingual meeting. Journal of Business Communication 47: 505–531.

54.

Yagi

Kleinberg

(2011) Boundary work: an interpretive ethnographic perspective on negotiating and leveraging cross-cultural identity. Journal of International Business Studies 42(5): 629–653.

55.

Zander

Gaffney

. (2010) Intersectionality as a new perspective in international business research. Scandinavian Journal of Management 26(4): 457–466.

56.

Zanoni

Janssens

Benschop

. (2010) Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality: rethinking difference through critical perspectives. Organization 17(1): 9–29.