The unacknowledged barrier
A qualitative study of the communication factors influencing
inclusion of highly-qualified language minorities
Dorothea Meyer
11112034
Master’s Thesis
Supervisor: James Slevin
MSc Corporate Communication
Graduate School of Communication
University of Amsterdam
Abstract
This study’s aim was to analyse the experience and perceived inclusion of highly-qualified language minorities in a Dutch working environment. With growing diversity in the workplace, due to the globalization, expats are becoming a valuable, yet challenging factor for team management. Extensive research has shown the importance of inclusion for success on the organizational and individual level. Creating an atmosphere, where both the majority and the language minority feel included, should therefore be prioritized.
This study provides insights into highly-qualified minorities’ experiences in a primary Dutch working context, through 12 extensive interviews., to answer the following overall research question: “What manner and medium of communication lead to the highest experienced inclusion in highly-qualified language minority individuals?” The results show that language and cultural background still strongly influence relationship building and inclusion. An open and diversity-positive climate, supportive organizations and leaders, and a primarily English workplace are key factors for inclusion perceptions of highly-qualified language minorities. Furthermore, while language barriers heavily impact workplace relationships, internationally-working employees seem to subconsciously reject that idea, as it might contradict their international self-image.
Introduction
Diversity is undeniably a central part of the modern business world (Boekhorst, 2015). In their paper “Global war for talent”, Beechler and Woodward (2009) discuss several factors that contribute to this state of a modern diverse workforce, including “lower immigration and emigration barriers” (p. 275), an increase in employees’ willingness to relocate, technological advancement, and the considerable growth in female labour participation. Sposato, Feeke, Anderson-Walsh, and Spencer (2015) furthermore stress the importance of a diverse workforce as a business success factor: they classify a company’s failure to mirror society’s diversity as a risk of missing out on business, as well as an exposure to potentially harming factors like high turnover rates and legal difficulties. Additionally, successful corporate diversity can enlarge an organization’s human resource talent pool, and prevent employees’ feelings of inequality (Sposato et al., 2015). Currently, a considerable amount of diversity research centres around gender, ethnicity, and race (Boekhorst, 2015). The distinct factor of language diversity however, a central element of both, successful communication and inclusion, is lesser discussed.
In their 2015 report “Expat, wanneer ben je het?” (Expats who are they?) the Dutch Central Bureau for Statistic (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, CBS) describes the typical characteristics of expats in the Netherlands: foreign nationality, born and raised in another country (less familiar with the Dutch culture and language), work-based migration reason, earning on average higher wages than regular employees (however, e.g. additional social security costs for expats factor into this), work in an internationally oriented company, are highly qualified, have no intention of permanently staying in the Netherlands, and do not necessarily identify themselves with Dutch norms and values.
Since companies rely on well-qualified expats to advance their business, it is valuable to take a closer look at language diversity, since, as aforementioned, typical minority affiliation has either been largely explored, or is less applicable for these highly qualified employees. However, individuals might still suffer from being a minority member in the organizational context despite high qualifications, which could be a partial explanation for the lack of the previously described value identification. The organizational communication could play a part in either fostering or impeding inclusion.
Based on the CBS’s definition, circa 39,100 to 75,200 expats live in the Netherlands (status as of January 2012), another estimation (focusing on different salary criteria) from the CBS found as much as 101,000 expats (CBS, 2015). Summarising, it can be said that expats constitute an essential part of the workforce in a globalized country like the Netherlands. Therefore, instead
of accepting diversity simply as a fact of existence, companies should look for ways in which the exploitation of diversity benefits can be optimized. Diversity’s powerful benefits have been recognized when it comes to e.g. gender diversity, demonstrating that “companies with a higher representation of women in senior management positions outperform companies with proportionally fewer women at the top“ (Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Catalyst, 2007). However, reality still evidently fails to reflect this, as the global number of executive women shows only little development (Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Jacobs, 2005). Moreover, diversity can also have decisively negative consequences, such as “more communication problems, more conflict and higher turnover rates” (p. 279) and lower team effectiveness (Beechler & Woodward, 2009; Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, & Neale, 1998). Diversity's significance in modern business is further substantiated by over 5500 companies, together exceeding 15 million employees, in 12 countries throughout Europe, signing a diversity charter, pledging to promote diversity and equal opportunities (European Union Platform of Diversity Charters, 2014). Effective diversity management should therefore be a chief priority for organizations to avoid related difficulties, such as “discrimination, bias, affirmative action, and tokenism (Shore et al., 2009)” (Shore et al., 2011).
Regarding appropriate diversity management, the power of communication must not be underestimated. Morgan and Vardy (2006) propose the idea of ‘discourse systems’ differences, which explains minority's failure in the job market with a discrepancy of verbal and nonverbal signals sent out by majority and minority members. Majority's difficulty to understand the minority leads to diversity disadvantage, despite minority's qualification and a lack of inherent discriminatory attitude on the majority's side (Morgan & Vardy, 2006). Del Carmen Triana, Kirkman, and Wagstaff (2012) make a case for the importance of communication order effects when it comes to the inclusion of minorities; demonstrating that initial computer-mediated communication (before face-to-face) can lead to higher perceived inclusion of a minority woman in an otherwise male group. Pearce and Randel (2004) make a strong case for the importance of workplace social inclusion on both an organizational and personal job performance level. Good relationships between employees benefit organizational performance e.g. through more information exchange, less change resistance, and a higher pursuit of organizational goals (Pearce & Randel, 2004). The manner and medium used to communicate with a diverse workforce are therefore vital considerations, and should constitute an integral part of productive diversity management.
Following the request for more qualitative research (Boekhorst, 2015), this paper will provide detailed insights into the experience of highly-qualified language minorities and investigate the
consequences of potential language-based social exclusion in the workplace. Moreover, this study aims to provide a guideline for further research directions concerning language minorities in the globalized working environment.
Theoretical Framework
The following sections will use a selection of diverse literature from management, communication, and sociology research to provide a textual overview, mainly focusing on the concepts of diversity, inclusion, and the influence of communication. Based on this, expectations will be formulated, which will be further explored through qualitative research, namely in-depth interviews.
Diversity
Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, and Homan (2004) broadly define diversity as “differences between individuals on any attribute that may lead to the perception that another person is different from self” (p. 1008). Two main research tendencies are identified: the social categorization perspective states that individuals classify themselves and others into an in-group (to which they belong) and one or several out-in-groups, based on similarities and differences, with favouritism towards one’s in-group over the out-group(s) (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Moreover, higher similarity among group members leads to more positive inclination towards the group and its members, less conflicts and turnovers, and better member commitment, which suggest higher group performance (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). The second tendency is the information/decision-making perspective, which states that diversity provides a group with a greater range of resources and the need to accommodate the different perspectives, which can lead to better performance due to increased creativity, innovation, points of view, and higher quality ideas (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Boekhorst, 2015). The tendencies are commonly distinguished based on their diversity dimension: the social categorization perspective is related to easily accessible category markers, such as sex, race, and ethnicity (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). The relevant category markers for the information/decision-making perspective centre around diverse background and skills, which lead to desired information diversity and elaboration (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Van Knippenberg et al. (2004) stress the importance of elaboration as essential, such that diversity-based conflict is only valuable, if it causes a more in-depth discussion of the topic at hand. However, making a clear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ diversity dimensions is impractical, as informational and social category diversity are usually intertwined, and prompt both categorization and elaboration processes (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Similarly, Harrison, Price, and Bell (1998) describe the easily comprehensible division
of surface-level (race, ethnicity, sex) and deep-level diversity (attitudes, values). The easily available surface-level diversity cues enable effortless categorization, which can activate negative stereotypes about minority group members and have detrimental effects on them (del Carmen Triana et al., 2012). Language diversity in the workplace, while constituting an easily detectable and categorized surface-level diversity cue, still falls into both of the diversity dimensions as previously discussed, since it also entails a wide range of additional information and attitudes.
While categorization in itself might be value-neutral, it is indispensable to consider the intergroup bias. Intergroup bias describes the “more favourable perceptions of, and attitudes and behaviour towards in-group than out-group” (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004, p. 1015). Hofhuis, van der Zee, and Otten (2012) explain that “in culturally diverse organizations, employees often categorize their fellow workgroup members in terms of their ethnic or cultural heritage” (p. 966), which entails a positive bias for cultural in-group and negative bias towards cultural out-group members. Dinsbach, Feij, and de Vries (2007) found that ethnic minority employees in ethnically diverse organizations in the Netherlands faced “difficulties in maintaining personal relations at work” (p. 740), despite not experiencing impediments when it came to work-related topic interaction with colleagues, and even expressing more positive job attitudes. Moreover, ethnic minority employees’ perception of unequal treatment “was negatively related to person-related communication” (Dinsbach, Feij, & de Vries, 2007, p. 742) Indeed, personal relationships at the workplace are vital for gaining trust, respect, support, and knowledge, factors that have an impact on job attitudes and behaviours (Dinsbach, Feij, & de Vries, 2007). Furthermore, “friendships in the work unit tend to facilitate organizational inclusion” (Hope Pelled, Ledford Jr, & Albers Mohrman, 1999, p. 1016). Workplace friendships provides decision-making influence, an organizational information source, and even enhanced job security through co-worker support (Hope Pelled et al., 1999). Dinsbach et al.’s (2007) results align with their idea that being an ethnic minority employee has a negative impact on job socialization, due to being an out-group member and encountering difficulties in understanding cultural information. While the ethnic minority employees in this study were non-western and predominately lesser educated, the results are still interesting when applied to the more privileged group of expat language minorities: the social categorization and in-group bias could lead to the formation of international, or even specific nationality groups, versus the host-country majority group (in this case the Dutchmen), with lower personal relations between language minority and majority members. Consequently, language minority members, despite high qualifications, could forfeit the inherent benefits of workplace socialization.
A core conflict in diversity management is the ‘us versus them’ idea. Through the aforementioned categorization processes, a clash between at least two opposing groups arises. The intergroup bias is “typically inspired by threats or challenges to the value or the distinctiveness of group identity” (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004, p. 1015). A threat can be created e.g. when a group’s distinct identity is denied or suppressed, or by management’s decision to gloss over group differences in favour of “a shared superordinate identity” (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004, p. 1015). Efforts to suppress categorization can therefore be counterproductive; instead, an approach that allows for subgroups’ distinctiveness, equal status, and more inclusive group perceptions is recommended to decrease intergroup bias (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Hofhuis et al. (2012) similarly state that an overarching group identity will not be enough in the case of various specific subgroups within an organization. Especially in the case of culturally-based group formation, this could be perceived as a request to ignore one’s cultural heritage, a crucial self-image element (Hofhuis et al., 2012). The optimum of a dual identity, a situation where both the overarching and subgroup identity can significantly coexist is difficult to achieve, since people tend to create an idea of an idealistic category member, a prototype representing the identity in question, a process called “in-group projection” (Hofhuis et al., 2012). The organizational majority can dominate this prototype creation, leading to perceived exclusion of minority members. Jansen, Vos, Otten, Podsiadlowski, and van der Zee (2016) align with this reasoning when describing that the majority-preferred colour-blind diversity approach, which stands for equal treatment and ignorance of group differences. With the colour-blind approach, the majority group’s norms and values can become the standard, which determines inclusion and exclusion, to the detriment of minority group members (Jansen et al., 2015). A proposed solution is the promotion of the belief that diversity is valuable (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Hofhuis et al. (2012) advocate a ‘diversity climate’, described as “the degree to which an organizational climate facilitates the presence of cultural differences, and views this diversity as a positive asset” (p. 969). The two essential components of this diversity climate are ‘openness to diversity’, describing the ability to preserve one’s cultural habits despite them differing from the normal standard and allowing for failure and new ideas, and ‘appreciation of diversity’, considering diversity as valuable (Hofhuis et al., 2012). A climate for inclusion, providing both “a sense of belongingness and uniqueness, provides the comfort needed for employees to apply their individual differences to work processes, strategies, and tasks” (Boekhorst, 2015, p. 242). A strong diversity climate allows for dual identity, and higher employee satisfaction and perceived recognition, as well as fewer diversity-related conflict, especially for minority members (Hofhuis et al., 2012). A
powerful diversity climate fosters stronger organizational identity for minority, and stronger cultural identity for majority members, due to the reduction of negative cultural categorization effects, while simultaneously enabling positive diversity effects by permitting diverse cultural expression (Hofhuis et al., 2012). Therefore, minority members, who beforehand were excluded as less prototypical and an out-group, experience an increased perception of inclusion and organizational identity (Hofhuis et al., 2012).
After reviewing this literature, we therefore assume that language minority members working in an organization with less majority dominated values and norms, as well as a climate that allows for openness and appreciation of diversity, will feel more included in the organization and experience higher job satisfaction (Hypothesis 1).
Inclusion
Inclusion, which can be broadly defined as “the degree to which an individual perceives that the group provides him or her with a sense of belongingness and authenticity” (Jansen et al., 2015, p. 82), is a critical success factor in the modern workplace. Organizational members that feel socially included can benefit from increased self-esteem, job satisfaction, and show lower employee absenteeism (Jansen et al., 2015). Furthermore, inclusion “can also improve the functioning of groups and organizations” as “it has been posited that as people perceive to be more included, they are more motivated to contribute to the group” and inclusion was “found to be positively related to productive work outcomes such as performance (Pearce & Randel, 2004) and organizational creativity and innovation (Jansen et al., 2014)” (Jansen et al., 2015, p. 83). Pearce and Randel (2004) summarize that employees’ relationships with each other can promote organizational performance, and employees with higher workplace social inclusion enjoy better job performance appraisal by their supervisors. Hence, inclusion is essential for success on both the organizational and individual level, and should be awarded the corresponding attention. As this paper focuses on inclusion of minority members in a diverse environment, the inclusion definition needed to take this into consideration. Self-reported inclusion perception is appropriate, as individuals themselves can best express their inclusion experience (del Carmen Triana et al., 2012; Pearce & Randel, 2004).
Communication
It does not only matter what is being communicated, but also how it is being communicated, what manner and medium are employed. Traditionally, it is for example advised to conduct an initial face-to-face (FTF) meeting when working with a diverse range of communication media, in order to build trust and relationships (del Carmen Triana et al., 2012). However, “in diverse teams in which particular individuals are different from others, minority team members can feel
isolated and ignored” (del Carmen Triana et al., 2012, p. 59). A possible reason for this is being part of the out-group and the lower status that comes with it. In teams with mixed-status members, the higher-status members generally dominate speaking time and conduct, however if computer-mediated communication (CMC) occurs social categorization cues are reduced and perceived inclusion and uninhibited communication are encouraged (del Carmen Triana et al., 2012). Schein (1990) explains norm formation around critical incidents and identification with leaders. A critical incident provides an emotionally charged situation witnessed by the group, so “the immediate next set of behaviours tends to create a norm” (Schein, 1990, p. 115), which upon reoccurring can develop into a belief and assumption. In del Carmen Triana et al.’s (2012) study, initial CMC allowed the minority (women) to engage more, therefore establishing their position in the critical primary norm foundation period. The study’s results showed that women as a minority in a male team experienced more team inclusion if the initial interaction took place via CMC and then shifted to FTF, while men perceived equal inclusion no matter the communication order (del Carmen Triana et al., 2012). Therefore, communication order may be able to help a minority member in a diverse team to counter social categorization and norm creation processes, without negatively effecting the majority members. While a clear hypothesis cannot be made, it can be expected that language minority team members might find initial CMC easier, as e.g. non-working language small talk that might lead to perceived exclusion, could be a less likely occurrence.
Leader identification occurs as the dominant figures within an organization model behaviour and beliefs that are internalized by the other members; however, as the organization develops this learning process becomes progressively more shared and reflects the entire organization to a greater extent (Schein, 1990). “Leaders are instrumental in shaping shared climate perceptions” (Boekhorst, 2015, p. 246), as their interpretation of organizational processes and behavioural workplace expectations serve as guidelines and are entrenched in the organization through their action and behaviour (Boekhorst, 2015). Authentic leaders are well-equipped for creating an open and inclusive communication, as they are self-aware, possess relational transparency, make fair decision through balanced processing, and hold an internalized moral perspective (Boekhorst, 2015). Authentic leadership can create inclusive behaviours such as “genuinely eliciting viewpoints from followers (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008), seeking follower input to facilitate participative decision-making (Pless & Maak, 2004), and encouraging open communication especially among employees whose voices may have otherwise been absent (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006)” (Boekhorst, 2015, p. 246). As followers model their behaviours after their authentic leaders, they in return also foster an
inclusive environment, which can be encouraged through a matching reward system that honours inclusive conduct (Boekhorst, 2015). We therefore propose that language minorities, who perceive their organization and leaders as promoting inclusive behaviour to experience higher inclusion perceptions (Hypothesis 2).
Language
English, as a world language with approximately 942,533,930 speakers worldwide (Paul, Simons, & Fennig, 2016) is the dominant business language in the globalized working environment. This study focuses on highly-qualified language minorities (expats as described by the CBS), who work in an English language business context in a non-English-speaking country (the Netherlands), with a majority of local native Dutch-speakers as colleagues. While the minority individual is not required to be the only language minority in the team/organization, he or she should be a clear minority, with the native Dutch speakers constituting the majority. These language minority members may not endure many of the disadvantages of typically studied minorities, such as lower education and wages, but they still experience a more complex organizational situation than the average majority member, due to the local working environment being characterised as non-English, but Dutch. Communication fostering interpersonal relationship, such as small talk, or differing communication attitudes and patterns can still impede effective communication and relationship building.
While Hall’s statement (1959) that “culture is communication and communication is culture” (p. 169) has been critically discussed, culture and communication are undeniably intertwined (Gudykunst, 1997). “Culture is our implicit theory of the ‘game being played’ in our society”, however there is no awareness or agreement of the rules, despite everyone behaving as if there were (Gudykunst, 1997, p. 328). Culture influences the way we communicate, a famous example being Hall’s (1976) differentiation between high- and low-context communication, which can complicate cross-cultural communication (Gudykunst, 1997). Peltokorpi (2007) exemplified this in a study of Nordic expatriates’ “perspective on intercultural communication patterns and tactics in Japan” (p. 68) and their strategies to increase their intercultural communication, in which she criticised the neglect of language impact research. The Nordic expatriates encountered difficulties when it came to e.g. uncertainty tolerance and power distance, and increased in-group/out-group formation due to differing communication styles (Peltokorpi, 2007). Proposition to reduce these language-based barriers included adapting communication styles to cater to the Japanese communication style and value, as well as investing in “pre-departure expatriate language training” and personnel with insights into both cultures (Peltokorpi, 2007, p. 80). While the Nordic-Japan cultural communication gap might
be significantly larger, this indicates that similar language-based problems can arise for this study’s minority individuals, which might additionally be hard to detect due to more subtlety. Angouri (2013) states that an official work language does not transform a multilingual workplace monolingual, but confirms “the co-existence of ‘official’ and local languages” (p. 576). Language exclusion in work teams through co-workers speaking a different language, led to lower likability of these co-workers and lower work team success perception in the excluded worker (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zárate, 2006). Furthermore, workers who feel ostracized by foreign-language speaking co-workers, led to lower organizational and team commitment levels (Hitlan et al., 2006).
Workplace language diversity can therefore provide communication difficulties, due to underlying cultural differences, an increased social categorization, and “us versus them” perspective. Language exclusion on a personal level can have not only interpersonal, but also organizational consequences. It can therefore be assumed that language minorities experience lower levels of inclusion, especially if English as official language is not majorly enforced, and the workplace can be described as more multilingual (Hypothesis 3).
The discussed literature offers a multitude of expectations when it comes to highly-qualified language minorities’ experiences in the globalized workplace. However, due to this diversity and complexity, formulating and testing clear hypotheses would be illogical and infeasible. Under consideration of the aforementioned important factors such as inclusion and communication medium for diverse workforce success, we therefore pose the following overall research question as guidance throughout the study: “What manner and medium of communication lead to the highest experienced inclusion in highly-qualified language minority individuals?”
Method
Rynes and Gephart (2004) describe qualitative research as a “multimethod research that uses an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994)” (pp. 454-455). Furthermore, qualitative research’s capacity of analysing a phenomenon in its natural environment, along with the “social actors’ meanings to understand the phenomena (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994)” (Rynes & Gephart, 2004, p. 455) is stressed. Qualitative research is inductive, interpretive, descriptive, and with an “inherently literary and humanistic focus” (Rynes & Gephart, 2004, p. 455). These descriptions demonstrate qualitative research’s power when it comes to examining social experiences, using the societal members’ concepts and meanings of their realities, and confer significance to the description and understanding of the members’ actual emptions and human interactions (Rynes & Gephart, 2004). As the research problem in
question is deeply rooted, complex, and very sensitive, a qualitative research design is appropriate (Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, & Ormston, 2013). Qualitative research’s aforementioned attributes allow for a better understanding of the real-life inner processes of highly-qualified minorities in a Dutch working environment. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with minority members of different organizations. While this method does not allow for generalizability, the research’s explanatory and evaluative outlook aims at supporting companies with information concerning effective diversity communication, through detailed and real-life based insights of affected individuals.
Respondents
Purposive sampling was selected as the suitable sampling technique, as it is appropriate for smaller, in-depth studies (Ritchie et al., 2013). Furthermore, it ensured the inclusion of the necessary characteristics (highly-qualified national minority in a Dutch working environment) that the study wants to research, while also guaranteeing a certain degree of diversity between the individuals (e.g. different employment), which is essential when studying the characteristics’ effects and investigating perspective dissimilarities (Ritchie et al., 2013). Homogenous samples allow for a “detailed picture of a particular phenomenon” (Ritchie et al., 2013, p. 79). This study used a relatively homogenous age group, ranging from 23 to 35, and education level (Bachelor or Master degree), to ensure a thorough investigation of the experiences of participants, while avoiding distortions through e.g. too much power due to a highly advanced career status, or less mastery of the modern, globalized world, due to a lower education level. However, a more heterogeneous sample, which involves the intentional inclusion of widely differing phenomena, was chosen according to employment, gender, and nationalities, in order to properly analyse central themes throughout the differing circumstances (Ritchie et al., 2013). Moreover, the variation in participants will allow for a certain extent of triangulation (Golafshani, 2003).
Participants were selected based on their nationality, education level, and employment. This resulted in three groups: the international minority members working in a Dutch working environment (eight interviewees), the Dutch working with internationals in a Dutch working environment (three interviewees), and a bilingual international, working in a Dutch-working environment (one interviewee). Including the perspective of the local Dutch employees, as well as a bilingual speaker, enabled a more comprehensive, multi-perspective study of the phenomenon. The participants were searched for and contacted through LinkedIn and Facebook, based on the researcher’s broader social connections, and belongingness to expat groups. After the initial contact, the participants received an email with additional information
about the research, their rights and privacy insurance, and the recording of the interview. All participants were informed in writing, as well as verbally that study participation was completely voluntary, with the possibility of ending participation at any point (Appendix A). Privacy was ensured by the singing of a privacy and participation agreement by both researcher and study participant (Appendix A), with the guarantee of safeguarding the participant’s anonymity, by not divulging information that would allow for identification. The privacy insurance was of special significance, as the study aims at discovering the participants’ deeper experiences and emptions, which requires a framework in which the participants feel free, safe, and inspired to express themselves. To further create a pleasant interview experience, participants could choose their own interview setting (with the stipulation of allowing for conversation), and a conversational tone was adopted during the interview itself. All interviews were recorded, with the average interview lasting 45:17 minutes, ranging from 33:54 minutes (shortest) to 67:33 (longest).
Ultimately, the study included 12 participants, from ten different nationalities, consisting of 58,33% females (n=7). The age ranged from 23 to 35 years, with an average age of 26.92 years and a median of 26 years. There were two Bachelor, nine Master, and one PhD degree, and an average employment time of 22 months (median of 12 months). The participants all came from a business--related educational background. All participants had standard working hours compared to their colleagues, in order to avoid e.g. exclusion based on less time spent at the workplace. Participants were from both western and eastern European countries, in order to allow for exploration of differences between countries with a varying degree of cultural similarity to the Netherlands. The data was collected during December 2016. The table in Appendix B provides an overview of the study participants’ profiles; the names were changed to ensure anonymity.
Procedure
The semi-structured interviews provided the possibility to create a somewhat comparable structure to the interviews, by relying on the same few key questions each time, while still allowing for flexibility, and avoiding too formulaic reporting (Ritchie et al., 2013). An interview guide (see Appendix C) served as a consistency-enhancing memory aid, guaranteeing the coverage of the key issues, while providing room for individual details and probing (Ritchie et al., 2013). Furthermore, the creation of the interview guide served as a sort of preliminary mapping; the deep examination allowed the researcher to confront her previous understanding and perception of the issues, which supports the prevention of projecting these onto the interviewee (Visser, Stappers, Van der Lugt, & Sanders, 2005). The interview guide was
created in a way that allowed for easy and pleasant use, for both researcher and interviewee: the opening subject is easy to answer and aims at providing a comfortable introduction to the interview, in order to encourage the interviewee to talk (Ritchie et al., 2013). Moreover, the questions were arranged from general to increasingly specific, to sustain the pleasant atmosphere (Ritchie et al., 2013). To provide a congenial ending to the interview, the guide moves away from emotionally taxing questions, and towards plans about the future, as well as improvement suggestions (Ritchie et al., 2013). The interview guide underwent prior testing on an independent third-party to verify operability and comprehensibility.
Probing techniques, like requesting clarification or motivations, were used for a more comprehensive exploration of the topics (Ritchie et al., 2013). Requesting examples is a way to steer towards the underlying emotions and attitudes, since it is typically easier to discuss experiences and previously shown behaviour, and they provide additional depth, specificity, and illustrations to the data (Ritchie et al., 2013). Additionally, attention was paid to the interviewee’s body language for emotional context, and the researcher was mindful to provide sufficient time to examine and answer the questions (Ritchie et al., 2013).
Analysis
Upon completion of the data procurement, the interviews were transcribed verbatim via Microsoft Word (Appendix D). The interview transcripts were entered into the qualitative data analysis tool Atlas.ti (atlas.ti, 2016), for initial open and subsequent selective coding. An inductive coding approach was chosen: the transcripts were read thoroughly to gain an overall understanding, open codes were noted in Atlas.ti, from which then categories were freely created, based on similarity and relation to phenomena (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). These categories were then further grouped based on the essential, underlying idea, and through abstraction main- and subcategories were generated, aptly named with “content-characteristic words” (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008, p. 111; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The aforementioned concepts of language, communication, diversity, and conclusion were used as sensitizing concepts, providing guidance throughout the analysis (Blumer, 1954). The resulting concept indicator model provides a visual overview of the coding process (Appendix F). Quality
Reliability was established through several meticulous measures: peer debriefing, conventions for note taking and transcription were established, the categories developed through open-coding were tested against other passages, and the entire research process was detailed and vigorously documented (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Flick, 2009). The different perspective of the
interviewees (including the native Dutch point of view) will allows for triangulation (Golafshani, 2003).
Communicative validity was achieved through the possibility of subsequent individual feedback discussions with the participants to check for approval of the transcript and insights, which was necessary in one case (Flick, 2009). Furthermore, detailed notes were taken, the report was as exact as possible, e.g. through extensive use of thick description, peer debriefing was conducted, and the researcher scrutinized the transferability of the research to ensure external validity (Flick, 2009; Golafshani, 2003).
Results
The analysis of the interview transcripts uncovered six dimensions, which relate to the overall concept of ‘Factors influencing workplace inclusion’, displayed in the concept indicator model (Appendix F). Each dimension’s subcategories will be discussed in detail, with representative quotes as substantiation and illustration. The analytical process and consequential results are centred around the previously discussed research question, as well as closely connected to the concepts examined in the theoretical framework. Since generalizations or forthright construction of correlations cannot be produced through this qualitative research, it is important to accurately portray the understanding and meaning of the dimensions. Since the aim of presenting qualitative research results is to “present findings in an accessible form that will satisfy the research objectives and enable the audience to understand them” (Ritchie et al., 2013, p. 288), the following sections will focus on providing insights into the participants’ emotions and motivations; to fulfil the research’s task of providing guidance for interworking with language minorities.
Language
Language, as stated previously, revealed itself to be a key factor, strongly influencing whether a participant felt included in the workplace, or not. In most cases, English constituted the official working language for the participant, and everyone considered English to be indispensable for the successful execution of their job. Most internationals actually expressed a greater affinity to English when communicating in a professional context, since it was the primary language used during their formative years of university and joining the workforce. While professional English proficiency was essentially considered a hygiene factor, the following three factors were decisive when discussing inclusion:
English as Corporate Language
Despite the ubiquity of professional English skills, participants expressed an incapacity to express themselves as profoundly in English, as in their native language, as illustrated by the following quote:
Emilie: “Of course I prefer to work in my native language. (…) English is also not our mother tongue, so you cannot express everything the way that we want. Even though your English is very good, there is some things that don’t sound the same way as if you say them in (…) Bulgarian in my case. So it’s much easier. You can use the nuances between differences in meaning, between words. While in English, you just use the same word, (…) right?”
According to the participants, both native Dutch speakers and internationals, this inability to articulate explicitly what one intends to, results in a hesitance to speak, and less participation than during native-language use. Furthermore, through language-based differences of expression, things can get lost in translation, leading to a lower level of understanding:
Julie: “There is a lot of things that they cannot express in different ways, like they will always say “Oh, in Dutch we say dadada”, you know and use their own thing, and maybe that expression doesn’t even, even if you translate it, it’s not an image that resonates with maybe another nation.”
Native Language Use
Native language use parallel to the official corporate language (English) is common and generally accepted, occurring both in FTF and written conversations. Participants reported that the switch to native language use was frequently made, whenever something needed to be expressed under pressure, the conversation only concerned speakers within a language group, or the topic was very complicated:
Laura: “Well, if something needs to be told very quickly to the team, and if it’s like time pressure, then, if it’s not a long conversation, then they sometimes will switch to the person that speaks Dutch and tell quickly to that person what needs to be done.”
The use of the native language is thereby not limited to the Dutch majority, but occurs whenever native speakers get together:
Julie: “(…) But other language groups that start speaking; we have a lot of Russian developers that speak Russian in the office, or Brazilians that speak Brazilian.”
Acceptance for native language use is very high, with all participants considering the advantages (e.g. speed, better understanding, client demands) to outweigh exclusion, and many internationals also expressed a certain level of accountability, expressing the intention to learn Dutch for better inclusion:
Berkay: “I don’t feel like that’s a problem from the university, so it’s like a problem from me, because I don’t know the language of the country. So that’s why I am learning the language, so that I can become an active member.”
Exclusion
Language-based exclusion that was perceived as truly problematic mostly occurred around professional development, with internationals describing a lack of Dutch skills as an impediment.
Julie: “So that would be my frustration, because we also see it even in the leadership teams, that they are mainly Dutch, which makes sense, because there is just, I guess more Dutch people maybe. (…) And of course you have to deal with external stakeholders, but at the same time I do really find it unfair; like how do you hire people from abroad, and then have different growth opportunities for natives versus non-natives.”
Again, learning Dutch was stated as a solution to overcome this, often planned as not an immediate, but long-term professional goal. The hypothesized lower inclusion due to language differences is therefore confirmed, in workplace interaction, but especially in relation to underlying comprehension differences and professional growth (Hypothesis 3).
Communication
The importance of effective communication was stressed by every participant. Nationality
Nationality-based differences in communication were frequently acknowledged, assigning certain communicative behaviour to stereotypes:
Arnold: “As opposed to when it’s somebody from a culture like, I don’t know, China or something. They are usually more reserved, so it’s more like a figuring out how you are fitting into, or what they’re thinking, or what they think of you. Like it’s more of a puzzle sometimes in the beginning, and there are people that are more from a western country or western cultures, it’s very easy to straightaway have that connect.”
Differences in written communication, work attitudes, discussions, and perceptions of others were all related to stereotypes, showing that their influence is profound, despite nobody believing them to be completely true.
Rules
Communication guidelines were non-existent in virtually all participants’ organizations. While an official language did often exist, there was no awareness of any rules to abide by. Communicative behaviour was freely chosen, mostly based on common courtesy and practicability:
Maja: “All our IT tools are in English, and most of our demos are in English. Though I think for meetings and stuff, it’s probably the most appropriate language. Though if there are language policies, (…) I don’t know.”
Furthermore, the idea of introducing any rules concerning e.g. what language to use or to learn was strongly rejected, on the basis of being stifling and intrusive:
Julie: “I mean it would make sense, but at the same time I think if you start teaching people “Ok, like this is how the Dutch communicate and this is acceptable”, then you ran the risk that you lose on that whole individual authentic part, which is also what they sort of want to keep within the company. Yeah, so I don’t really see how that would work.”
Face-to-Face
FTF was by far considered the most inclusive and efficient communication. FTF was regarded especially imperative for complex issues, which reflected in participants’ desire to obtain a communication device that closely mirrors FTF-interaction:
Julie: “I think face-to-face. (…) I mean in most times it’s the one way where you know how people feel, (…), I mean if someone writes me an email, like it can be like, ok, they are angry, or maybe they are not, or maybe. Or even the feeling of being angry, but not being angry at the person, I feel like that’s only in face-to-face that you can express that well, or see that well.”
Maximilian: “(…) A hologram communication would be nice. (…) I think it would be really cool, because it would make everybody feel that they are there, so.”
Social Interactions
Participants considered socializing a key component of an inclusive and enjoyable workplace. Humour
Participants expressed being included in and understanding jokes as highly desirable. However, differing cultural perceptions of humour, and a reluctance to make a joke in a non-native language, incurring the risk of it not translating, significantly hinders the jesting in a multilingual working context:
Laura: “I don’t know, mostly, inside jokes. I mean it’s not something that you cannot live without it, it just makes your day go easier and I think it’s important to every once have a laugh. But also Dutch people, making jokes in another language takes some time, so a lot of people think they cannot make as good a joke in English, as they can in their own language, so they also tend to not make them. Or they are not good.”
Acceptance
While there were divergent opinions on how close one should be with colleagues, the interviews clearly showed an overwhelming need for amity and acceptance within the team. Team activities and having lunch together manifested themselves as crucial for feeling integrated:
Emilie: “That, when we are having lunch together, that’s very important I think. Because if, like if you have lunch alone, it’s very sad in a way, you know, you feel excluded, like you don’t belong anywhere, you’re here just for eight hours and that’s it, you are counting the time to leave. But when you are communicating with people and we are also telling jokes, saying something funny to each other sometimes, it creates some spirit and it doesn’t feel like obligation to be here. It is still an obligation, you cannot avoid it, but it’s not that bad. There is this social aspect.”
Ignoring cultural imprinting during social work activities could however impede this acceptance:
Julie: “(…) We’re a very social company as I said, but also a lot of it is based around the events, and the parties, and there’s a very heavy drinking culture. And we have a lot of people from like Egypt, or like Muslim countries, and every team celebration is about drinking. And they can’t drink, you know? So it’s like, how are we a diverse, international company, if all our, if everything is based around something that some of our colleagues can’t even do, you know?”
Openness
The interviews strongly suggest that openness is a prerequisite for feeling included. Participants stated that sharing a culture provides an intuitive understanding of how to interact, due to familiarity and equal cultural norms. Achieving this type of comprehension with foreigners is difficult due to cultural differences. However, the participants indicated that openness on both sides could help overcome this issue. Two factors proved to be notable for this:
Atmosphere
Confirming Hypothesis 1, a climate that appreciates diversity, and permits questions and mistakes, generates inclusion. As stated previously, less majority-dominated values and norms were expected to lead to higher inclusion for minority members, which seemed validated by all internationals expressing a strong desire to work in an international instead of purely Dutch setting. The interviews provided insights into how to create openness; through fostering social interaction, and open questions and support:
Anna: “There’s both, like work related events, and there’s also like social events, (…) so you can join a lot of events and everyone is super happy to talk to you, and like, you know, get to know everybody, and (…) to promote this like, I guess, interaction in a sense, that you know a lot of people from different departments, so that you know if you need (…) help, you know where to go and such as well. (…) It’s nice, and there’s like, I feel there’s a lot of opportunities to reach out to other people, to get to know other people, to get to know about other people’s work.”
Furthermore, an open atmosphere empowered employees to proactively request more inclusion, which could be the beginning of a self-propagating inclusion mechanism.
Hierarchy
The data demonstrated that hierarchy considerably influences inclusion. Supportive leaders (confirming Hypothesis 2) and flat hierarchies proved to be meaningful in creating inclusion. Leaders were shown to influence the company culture with their attitudes, role-modelling behaviour, and decisions concerning diversity:
Julie: “And I think it’s also down to like, leadership and sort of role-modelling, I think the more senior people within that team and the manager really need to set the example that they start speaking English whenever people come in, or, yeah that they really encourage, yeah, more of an international
vibe within the team. I think, because then when you see them doing it, then you feel a bit less awkward doing it, but if you are used to “Ok, everyone speaks Dutch, so let’s just speak Dutch”, of course that’s the most natural that comes to you.”
Moreover, personal support from one’s leader was considered empowering, and a safeguard against exclusion.
Relationship Building
The interviews uncover a duality when analysing relationship building: participants stated that relationships were mostly dependent on personality match, age, and similar professional status. The notion of relationships formed according to nationality was for the most part rejected:
Katerina: “It’s a really, has to do with the personality. So, never ever judge someone, or choose someone, if you want, because of the language, or because of his cultural background.”
Contradictory, participants’ own reality description revealed nationality to be influential in relationship building.
Status
Participants described inter alia personality, age, and professional status as determinants of relationships.
Maja: “I wouldn’t consider them as my friends yet, and there’s such a big gap, (…) I think we will be good colleagues, but maybe not like friends. (…) But with the trainees, which are all in my age, (…) and we of course go along very well.”
As previously discussed, social categorization-based favouritism towards one’s in-group has long been acknowledged, and was candidly considered to be the foundation of friendship by participants.
Nationality
The hesitance to state nationality as a significant relationship-influencing factor might stem from a fear of opposing one’s own internationally-oriented values, and perceiving oneself as a passive follower of one’s culturally formed subconscious. However, participants speculated that the shared experiences of internationals allowed them to connect more:
Julie: “(…) And then there’s always going to be that other moment where internationals will complain about the country (…). And then it’s kind of like, the rest, the rest of the people bonding into something that Dutch people cannot really relate to. (…) I think we mix a lot at XX, which is really good, but it does, it does exist.”
Moreover, hesitation was expressed towards investing in relationships without knowing how long the other person would actually be there. This reluctance could be another reason for the lesser inclusion of internationals in primarily Dutch groups.
Gratification
Despite significant exertions caused by being an international language-minority member, all participants expressed the desire to continue working in an international context. This suggest that an intrinsic gratification exists in working in such a context, which could explain why perceived inclusion did not suffer more from the negative experiences. Two perspectives stood out:
Personal Development
Participants believed international experience to be educational; sensitizing oneself for the emotional experiences and divergent cultural imprinting of others.
Arnold: “(…) People who’ve been in this setting where (…) they’re the ones that are the minority, and they have experienced first-hand that it’s not too pleasant if you’re not part of the conversation or something, I think if you’re like aware of that, (…) you’re way more conscious about including other people that might be in the same situation.”
Participants suggested that being able to take another person’s perspective was indispensable for creating an inclusive environment.
Interest Satisfaction
Unsurprisingly, people willing to work as an or with an expat seemed to carry an inherent desire to experience different cultures, and view the world from different perspectives:
Christine: “But in general I like the international perspective in organizations, I really like, because you can really learn so many things from people from different backgrounds and cultures.”
Dutch interviewees expressed satisfying the personal desire of being an expat through working with internationals, as well as an increased significance of their work through international interaction, as rationale.
Conclusion and Discussion Discussion
This study aimed to explore how communication factors, such as medium and manner, would influence inclusion experienced by highly-qualified language minority members in a Dutch working context. The analysis of interviews with both minority and majority members confirm the prevailing relevance, and provide insights into the way inclusion is experienced, and through what motivation. It showed that the native language membership and cultural imprinting still clearly shape one’s communicative behaviour and present a barrier to relationship building, despite participants’ similar educational backgrounds and lives.
As stated previously, all three hypotheses were confirmed, indicating that less majority-dominated values and an open climate, organizational and leader support, and the primary use of English as corporate language, are all highly influential in creating perceived inclusion.
However, the interviews provided even more complex relations than described earlier. Hereafter, the most noteworthy and relevant insights will be discussed, in order to fulfil the study’s purpose of providing guidelines for employers, and future research paths.
Humour, mostly not explicitly discussed in diversity literature, proved to be one of the most significant aspects of inclusion for language minority members. It was considered imperative for a good working atmosphere and relations with colleagues. The inability to understand jokes, as well as the hesitance to jest in an environment where the humour might be lost due to cultural differences, was described as regrettable. Major, Terraschke, Major and Setijadi (2014) declare humour and small talk as critical for developing and maintaining relationships with colleagues, and a feeling of belonging at work. Directing attention on overcoming coyness and encouraging humour, despite potential misunderstandings, could be a powerful and economic way of fostering inclusion.
Unlike the female minorities in del Carmen Triana et al.’s (2012) study, whose inclusion was fostered by initial CMC, participants showed an overwhelming preference towards FTF-communication. Initial FTF meetings were recommended for “project teams that use a variety of communication media to carry out tasks (…) to establish rapport, build trust, and get off to a good start (Hambley et al. 2007; Horwitz et al. 2006; Lantz 2001)” (del Carmen Triana et al.’s (2012). FTF-communication’s importance for relationship building and solving complex issues were stressed, showing that despite technological advancement, FTF-communication is indispensable to the interviewees.
An interesting finding was participants’ contradicting attitudes towards native language use: while it was experienced as exclusive in both, work and social conversations, acceptance for it was decidedly high, and any notion of combating it through communication rules was strongly dismissed. Official rules against native language use might be considered opposing the previously discussed ‘openness to diversity’ (Hofhuis et al., 2012), and infringe one’s sense of uniqueness, a key factor for inclusion (Boekhorst, 2015). Creating a language-inclusive environment that allows participants to retain their sense of self might be an unbridgeable gap. Interestingly, while all internationals did experience language-based exclusion, it was considered the most unpleasant in a profession context. As previously stated, Dinsbach et al. (2007) found ethnic minority employees to mostly struggle with personal work relations, but not with work-related matters. The highly-qualified interviewees however expressed little concern about social inclusion, and instead cared whether their lack of Dutch skills would obstruct their professional development. Motivations to learn Dutch were also mostly
connected to career advancement. However, participants did not perceive language differences to influence their social workplace status.
Furthermore, this relates to participants, both Dutch and internationals, rejection of openly acknowledging nationality and language as a relationship building determinant. While the language and cultural barrier clearly existed for them, they often hesitated to acknowledge it as such. This could be related to the concept of cognitive dissonance, which states: “If a person holds two cognitions that are inconsistent with one another, he will experience the pressure of an aversive motivational state called cognitive dissonance, a pressure which he will seek to remove, among other ways, by altering one of the two ‘dissonant’ cognitions” (Bem, 1967). If the participant considers himself to be very open and international, the fact that language and nationality strongly impact his relationships might be altered to avoid dissonance.
Despite experiencing inconveniences such as language-based exclusion and communication difficulties, participants remained enthusiastic about working in an international context as a language minority. The indicated reasons for this were all connected to an enthusiasm for international cultures and new experiences. This suggest that participants have high intrinsic motivation, “which refers to doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable” (Ryan & Deci, 2000), for working on an international level. This could further strengthen the desire to avoid cognitive dissonance, by disregarding factors that conflict with these intrinsic desires.
Participants repeatedly underlined the Dutchmen’s’ good English skills and willingness to use it, which according to them, rendered a real need to learn Dutch unnecessary. Furthermore, the small number of people actually speaking Dutch on an international scale makes learning Dutch unalluring. Volkswagen just recently made English the company language in the German headquarters (Spiegel, 2016). Exploring the effects on perceived inclusion in a larger country, with an environment that demands native language skills a lot more, might reveal very different findings, which could be valuable for contrasting and arriving at a broader definition of what really makes communication inclusive.
An instant messenger was generally an appreciated or desired tool, with participants praising it’s quick and uncomplicated way of communicating. Opinions varied however, when discussing whether private messengers (e.g. WhatsApp) should be used for work communication, and if so, in what manner. While some considered it to be practicable, and helpful due to high responsiveness, others perceived it as intrusive and unprofessional. Knowing that the communication tool can influence perceived inclusion (del Carmen Triana et al., 2012), future research should investigate the effects of personal messenger use, and how
effects of greater connectivity, e.g. the connectivity paradox (Fonner& Roloff, 2012) or the autonomy paradox (Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013), interrelate with inclusion. Conclusion
Despite offering extensive data, this study’s results cannot be generalized, due to a very limited, and carefully selected sample, where all participants, except one, came from Europe. Furthermore, the qualitative nature of the study means that an absence of subjectivity in the analysis, despite several preventive measures, cannot be ensured. The study’s sole purpose is to provide insights into the experience of highly-qualified minorities concerning inclusion, and supply research impetus. While confirming prior research results, such as culture shaping the way we communicate (Gudykunst, 1997), this study also sheds light on the underlying complexities and contradictions of a multilingual workplace, and the multifaceted experiences of language minorities.
Future research should include longitudinal studies, to analyse the development of experienced inclusion in relation to the time spend in the country, and growing language skills. With increasing globalization and rapprochement of people’s media experiences, differences between highly-educated workers might be considered less significant. This study however shows, that language still works as a barrier, often without being acknowledged by the parties concerned.
References
Angouri, J. (2013). The multilingual reality of the multinational workplace: Language policy and language use. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(6), 564-581. Atlas.ti (n.d.). ATLAS.ti 7 for Mac. Retrieved on December 07, 2016 on http://atlasti.com/de/produkt/mac-os-edition/.
Beechler, S., & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global “war for talent”. Journal of international management, 15(3), 273-285.
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological review, 74(3), 183.
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory?. American sociological review, 19(1), 3-10.
Boekhorst, J. A. (2015). The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A social information processing perspective. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 241-264. Catalyst, J. (2007, October 1). Companies with more women board directors experience higher
financial performance. Retrieved from
http://www.catalystwomen.org/pressroom/press_bottom_line_2.shtml
Central Bureau for Statistic (CBS) (2015). Expat, wanneer ben je het?. Retrieved from
https://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/7F0AA4B2-92E9-45EB-9D3E-AA30EA7EEE6A/0/20150114expatsdefmw.pdf
Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 749-780.
del Carmen Triana, M., Kirkman, B. L., & Wagstaff, M. F. (2012). Does the order of face-to- face and computer-mediated communication matter in diverse project teams? An investigation of communication order effects on minority inclusion and participation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(1), 57-70.
Denzin, N. K. (8). 8: Lincoln, YS 2000. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 1-28.
Dinsbach, A. A., Feij, J. A., & de Vries, R. E. (2007). The role of communication content in an ethnically diverse organization. International journal of intercultural relations, 31(6), 725-745. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
European Union Platform of Diversity Charters (2014). Assessing Diversity Impact in
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/assessing_diversity2014_en.pd Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.
Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462.
Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2012). Testing the connectivity paradox: Linking teleworkers’ communication media use to social presence, stress from interruptions, and organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 79(2), 205–231.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8(4), 597-606.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1997). Cultural variability in communication an introduction. Communication research, 24(4), 327-348.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language (Vol. 3, p. 1959). New York: Doubleday. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of management journal, 41(1), 96-107.
Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, K. M., Schepman, S., Schneider, K. T., & Zárate, M. A. (2006). Language exclusion and the consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(1), 56.
Hofhuis, J., van der Zee, K. I., & Otten, S. (2012). Social Identity Patterns in Culturally Diverse Organizations: The Role of Diversity Climate1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(4), 964-989.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Hope Pelled, L., Ledford Jr, G. E., & Albers Mohrman, S. (1999). Demographic dissimilarity and workplace inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36(7), 1013-1031.
Jacobs, D. (2005). In search of future leaders: Managing the global talent pipeline. Ivey Business Journal Online, 1(5), 1-6.
Jansen, W. S., Vos, M. W., Otten, S., Podsiadlowski, A., & van der Zee, K. I. (2016). Colorblind or colorful? How diversity approaches affect cultural majority and minority employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(2), 81-93.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members' need for cognition. Academy of Management journal, 52(3),
581-598.
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24(5), 1337-1357. Major, G., Terraschke, A., Major, E., & Setijadi, C. (2014). Working it out. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 249-261.
Morgan, J., & Vardy, F. J. (2006). Diversity in the Workplace (No. 6-237). International Monetary Fund.
Paul, L.M., Simons, G.F., & Fennigs, C.D. (eds.), (2016). Ethnologue: Languages of the World,
Nineteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.
https://www.ethnologue.com/language/eng.
Pearce, J. L., & Randel, A. E. (2004). Expectations of organizational mobility, workplace social inclusion, and employee job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 81-98.
Peltokorpi, V. (2007). Intercultural communication patterns and tactics: Nordic expatriates in Japan. International Business Review, 16(1), 68-82.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London, UK: Sage.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Rynes, S., & Gephart Jr, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the academy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 49(2), 109–119. Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262-1289.
Spiegel, (2016, December 14). Volkswagen macht Englisch zur Konzernsprache. Der Spiegel. Retrieved from: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/volkswagen-macht-englisch-zur-konzernsprache-a-1125940.html
Sposato, M., Feeke, S., Anderson-Walsh, P., & Spencer, L. (2015). Diversity, inclusion and the workplace-equality index: the ingredients for organizational success. Human Resource Management International Digest, 23(5), 16-17.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of applied psychology, 89(6), 1008.
