• No results found

The use of English language by non-native speakers and its effects on creativity at the workplace

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The use of English language by non-native speakers and its effects on creativity at the workplace"

Copied!
36
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

The use of English language by non-native speakers and its

effects on creativity at the workplace

Master Thesis

Master’s Program Communication Science

Graduate School of Communication, University of Amsterdam

Sara-Marie Khabiri Student ID: 10878211 Supervisor: Lise van Oortmerssen

(2)

2 Abstract

This paper seeks to explore the use of English language by non-native speakers at the work place. In particular, the effects on creativity are examined. The fast moving business and labor world changed the picture of corporate languages and thus call for further investigation. This research uses diversity climate as a moderator and

knowledge sharing as a mediator. Both have not been used in this constellation in research before, which makes the model at hand very relevant for the research community. Information where gathered from 127 respondents via an online survey. It was not possible to identify significant associations steering from the model, except that knowledge sharing has a positive effect on creativity. On the basis of these findings the use of English language by non-native speakers and its outcomes are debated.

Introduction

The current century is characterized by globalization and with it a

continuously increasing market competition. The paces in which new technologies are developed and strategies changed constantly speed up. Consequently, it is crucial for a company to stay up to date with new products, business models and strategies (Kivimäki et al., 2000, p. 33). Thus, in order to stay competitive and successful it is crucial for firms to have a high level of creativity. The complexity of problems as well as the production of creative outcomes often requires solutions that combine and integrate knowledge and abilities of people with diverse backgrounds and

perspectives (Hargadon and Bechky, 2006). Hence, “situations where individuals must work together, share ideas, and be creative in team contexts” are vital in the modern workplace (Kurtzberg and Amabile, 2001, p.292). Naturally, the internal communication of employees is a key factor for the success of this process. However, globalization also implies the movement of labor and with it the change of linguistic

(3)

3 boundaries. Movement of labor and the increasing amount of Expatriates moving to other countries bring up challenges in all aspects of daily life (Lauring and Selmer, 2010, p. 267), specifically in the workplace. Especially English has evolved as the most used language within multinational organizations. In other words, English, as the lingua franca has not only found its place in almost all situations in daily life but also significantly in corporate offices.

This paper focuses on employees who, at their work place, mainly

communicate in English but are not native English speakers. While many scholars have examined the role of language diversity, studies often focused on the managerial level (Janssens et al., 2004, Piekkari and Zander, 2005) or blue-collar workers who are instructed in English (Lonsmann, 2014; Mills, 2002). Research on horizontal employee communication however remains largely absent. The effect of English language use between non-native colleagues however is crucial since the process of creativity is largely depending on a well functioning communication between the employees rather than solely focusing on those in managerial positions (Hargadon and Bechky, 2006). It is widely recognized that the creative insights do not solely emerge within a single individual but rather “across the interactions of multiple participants in the process” (Hargadon and Bechky, 2006).

Numerous studies of language diversity examine effects on internal communication, but are often limited to group cohesiveness (Lonsmann, 2014, Lauring and Selmer, 2010). However, this research adds to the existing scientific work as it acknowledges the importance of creativity in companies and examines to what extent it is affected by the use of English language by non-native employees. In

(4)

4 order to analyze the association of English language use and creativity, this paper poses the following research question:

“To what extend does the use of English language by non-native speakers have an effect on creativity?”

In order to examine this question the paper at hand starts with analyzing the two main variables of this research, namely English language communication and its effect on creativity. Furthermore, the role of knowledge sharing between English speaking but non-native employees is examined and given a mediating role. The diversity climate of an organization is argued to have a moderating role on knowledge sharing as well as creativity and hence is further elaborated.

Literature Review

English language use at the workplace

Nowadays, employees come across professional, linguistic as well as national boundaries as part of their regular work routine (Angouri, 2014). Especially the linguistic part affects all aspects of daily life and hence caught the attention of companies and researchers. In the last decade, numerous studies confirm that the use of English language is an intrinsic part of communication in multinational corporate settings (Lonsmann, 2014, Louhiala-Salminen et al, 2012). Employees increasingly need to use a language that is not their first language (L1). In the majority of

multinational corporations world wide, English is the linguae franca (Angouri, 2014). However, due to mobility of workers and virtual workplaces across the globe, the

(5)

5 linguistic landscape is often much broader than the national language (L1) and

English (L2). Unavoidably, companies have increasingly become more aware about linguistic diversity and the resulting linguistic barriers in the last years.

One way to manage is the introduction of language policies. Corporate language policies are defined as “systematic activities and efforts done in a company or organization in the linguistic communicative area with the purpose of supporting the goals of the company” (Simonsen, 2009, p. 203). Form and extent of the policies differ, ranging from planned language use in official documents to specific rules which language should be used in communication with colleagues and bosses (Kaplan and Baldauf, 2005). Consequently, a vast of research has been dedicated to this topic in the last decade (Sanden, 2015; Feely and Harzing, 2003). However, these policies predominately use a strong top-down approach and do not meet the needs of the employees (Frederiksson, Piekkaro and Barner-Rasmussen, 2006). Additionally, Nickerson (2005) stipulates that “communicative events are considerably more complex than the label of English as a lingua franca would suggest” (p. 371). Thus, especially the adoption of language policies on an entire organization entails the risk of treating every employee the same. However, it might be that the levels of English differ significantly. Understanding the importance of this internal communication circumstance, the research at hand does not investigate language policies but the actual effects on internal communication processes when communication is not preceded in the employee’s native language.

It is crucial to acknowledge that the use of English language by non-native speakers at the workplace is not a one-sided concept but rather complex. In the current research the focus is on two different aspects: On the one hand, the frequency

(6)

6 of English language use and on the other hand the self-perceived English language proficiency by employees. The latter aspect, even though being an important aspect in multilingual communication, is often missing in existing research. Knowledge

nowadays is an organization's base and most important resource. Thus, employees are recruited on the base of their knowledge and judged on the expected competitive advantage they bring to the organization. This process results in the increasing emergence of multinational and multilingual teams. Even though these teams share English as a common working language, their experience and proficiency in speaking and writing might differ significantly. It is crucial to acknowledge different levels of English proficiency by non-native speakers as it might have severe outcomes for communication on the group level. Valuing the importance of language, Cox (1994) argues that “persons who are less verbal due to cultural traditions or second-language factors may be unfairly judged as less competent” (p. 58). This in turn might result in a group bias. Marschan, Welch and Welch (2003) even go further by stressing that communication might completely be prevented by lacking language skills.

Numerous previous scholars have shown a negative association between language diversity and group trust (Distefano and Maznevski, 2000, Henderson, 2005). However, a person only experiences trust in a group when being included to that group. In the context of this research, the respective ‘group’ would be the department one works in. Lonsmann (2014) examined language ideologies and processes of exclusion at the workplace. According to his research, lacking

competence in the corporate language (which in his case also was English) can lead to “the sociolinguistic exclusion” of a group (p.89). Consequently, existing research suggests a negative correlation between the use of English language as an L2 and

(7)

7 group behavior at the workplace and in particular the process of exclusion

(Lonsmann, 2014). This research however does not focus on the inter-group effects such as group trust or cohesiveness. The premise of this paper is to take the research on language diversity one step further, examining the effects of English language usage as the L2 at work and its influence on creativity. While doing so, existing research of inter-group effects however helps to understand communication processes and to draw a more comprehensive picture.

Creativity

The concept creativity refers to a multitude of domains, processes and definitions (Crosby, 2001; Sawyer and Csikszentmihalyi, 1995). It has been argued that there is no single definition for creativity due to its wide scope. One of the most quoted definitions of creativity is the one by Eisenberger, Haskins and Gambleton (1995), who describe the concept as involving “the generation of novel behavior that meets a standard of quality or utility” (p.308). However, within the last decades and with rising globalization, the bar of quality and utility increased. Consequently, the creative process became of vital importance for an organization's success, especially due to the deep connection between creativity and innovation. For a long time in research and praxis, creativity was treated as an individual trait. However, for the last decade, the social and organizational components in the concept of creativity have been acknowledged (Sawyer and Csikszentmihalyi, 1995). Thus, two traits in research can be found, individual (Fredriksson, Barner-Rasmussen, Piekkari, 2006; Sosik, Avolito, & Kahai (1998)) as well as group/organizational creativity (Oxley,

Dzindolet, Paulus (1996)). This research follows the latter, by arguing that creativity and innovation are traits of the entire organization and not solely of particular

(8)

8 persons. Consequently, social and group creative processes are necessary key factors for corporate success (Sawyer and Csikszentmihalyi, 1995).

Even though lacking an omni functional definition, creativity can be split in four components: (1) the creative process, (2) the creative product, (3) the creative person and (4) the creative situation (Brown, 1989; MacKinnon, 1965; Mooney, 1963). Taking into account that creativity is a group process, a significant focus of this research lies on the first aspect, the creative process.

The creative process highly depends on interpersonal communication between employees (Kurtzberg, 2005). However, research on groups has suggested that

(linguistic) diversity among team members might affect the process of team creativity by influencing the context of communication, interaction and collaboration

(Kurtzberg and Amabile, 2001). In other words, social influence has the ability to change the “opinions and ideas generated by individuals and team” (ibid. p. 287). The two main reasons for this are as follows: Firstly, diversity in language proficiency can positively support the creative process by presenting different perspectives and points of view (Amabile, 1996). This opinion that creativity turns out better in

heterogeneous groups has been largely accepted (Kurtzberg, 2005). In addition, a variety of knowledge, culture, education and opinion have positive effects on group performance (Simons, Palled and Smith, 1999; Kurtzberg, 2005). However, diversity can also have negative effects and hinder the group process by limiting common understandings and shared experiences.

At this point it is crucial to acknowledge the special standing of language diversity in the process of creativity. Even though, the effects of genuine diversity on creativity can be transferred to language diversity, the latter does differ in some

(9)

9 aspects. Due to the inability or fear to express themselves in English, employees (the creative person) might experience cognitive differences. Kurtzberg (2005) strongly supports the assumption that in the complex construction of creativity, cognitive differences are an important predictor for emotions and work outcomes.

Consequently, the creative outcome or product can be hampered by language diversity. While diversity in a group has largely been argued to have positive

outcomes on creativity (Amabile, 2006), what language diversity can restrict people from communicating and hence, have negative outcomes on both, the personal as well as group level.

The role of the creative person has been investigated by Lonsmann (2014) who stipulates the risk that “employees may be excluded from informal interactions and from access to power structures on the basis of language skills” (p. 89). Looking at the medal from both sides, using English language as communication medium can on the one hand be the unifying factor for employees with a diverse background, enabling the process of creativity. On the other hand, different levels of English and low self confidence in speaking English can stipulate social anxiety and hinder creativity. Even though there is evidence for both, positive and negative effects of the use of English language by non-native speakers, this paper researches for the

following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1a: The use of English language at work by non-native speakers is negatively related to creativity.

The hypothesis assumes a negative effect, by suggesting that it is harder to deal with cultural diversity when there also is language diversity. In other words, employees who have different mother tongues are also expected to come from

(10)

10 different cultures and thus have different cultural values. However, cultural diversity is only beneficial with a functioning communication between employees. This in turn is expected to be negatively affected by the use of English language by non-native speakers.

The following sub hypothesis specifically investigates the effect of the employees self perceived English language proficiency on creativity. A negative influence is expected because in the particular case of creativity, communication within groups is crucial. A negative influence is expected since empirical studies have shown that, a communication culture favorable to the survival of new ideas is

characterized by high participation (Nystrom, 1979; Kanter, 1983; Poulton and West, 1993). However, different levels of English language can be expected to hinder participation due to employees with a lower self-perceived English language level being afraid or embarrassed to communicate.

Hypothesis 1b: The self-perceived English language proficiency of an employee is negatively related to creativity.

Knowledge Sharing

In the last years the research on knowledge sharing has become increasingly popular. Researchers as well as companies understand that knowledge is the most important resource nowadays (Ipe, 2003). The aspect of knowledge sharing has been tightly connected to both, linguistic diversity (Welch and Welch, 2008) as well as creativity (Ipe, 2003). However, the three aspects have not been combined in research. This research does so by using knowledge sharing as a mediator in the

(11)

11 analysis.

Nevertheless, one problem that has been encountered is the lack of a general definition. The concept of knowledge sharing is too broad and diverse to put in one frame. Knowledge is defined as “facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject” and includes the “transmission of knowledge” (Oxford Dictionary, 2015). Additionally, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) also emphasize the “flow of messages” (p.58). This definition goes in line with what van den Hooff and Huysman (2008) call the ‘emergent’ approach of knowledge sharing. This concept describes knowledge sharing as “not depending on management intervention but on the social capital of a group of people” (p.1). In other words, knowledge sharing cannot be enforced, but is a consequence of the intrinsic motivation to share. However, against this point of view stands the ‘engineering’ approach to knowledge sharing. This approach follows the central assumptions that “management can play a role by stimulating and creating an environment for the process” (Hooff and Huysman, 2008, p.1). However, most of the research speaks against the engineering approach and emphasizes that directly controlled knowledge processes by management are inefficient.

Drawing on the emergent approach, the importance of the individual employee in the knowledge sharing process is emphasized by many authors (Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995, other author). Knowledge is held by individuals and internalized as part of the organization's knowledge base (Ipe, 2003). Consequently, for a functioning process of knowledge sharing it is necessary that individuals communicate

information to others. Hence, when studying knowledge sharing, it is vital to examine the use of language in an organization. The different definitions of knowledge sharing

(12)

12 have one thing in common, which is stressing the exchange of information and

communication with others.

Even though Marschan-Piekkari et al. (1999) found that language can function both as facilitator and barrier, this paper focuses in its argumentation one the latter. The usage of English by non-native speakers can foster problems such as group clustering (Lonsmann, 2014). Furthermore, the level of English language by a non-native speaker can influence his or her position in the company. Consequently, communication clusters can lead to a shadow structure within the company

(Lonsmann, 2014, p. 90). In other words, an unofficial ‘hierarchy’ is emerging, which is based on how employees can express themselves in English. Employees that are low in this hierarchy might be afraid to speak up and communicate their ideas due to their self-awareness of lack in language skills. Consequently, the use of use of English language by non-native employees in negatively related to knowledge sharing.

Looking at the importance of communication and existing research on language diversity in groups the following second hypothesis is suggested:

Hypothesis 2a: The use of English language by non-native speakers is negatively related to knowledge sharing within the organization.

It has been established that knowledge sharing is a highly complex concept and how significant it is for an organization's success. In the research of this paper knowledge sharing serves the role of a mediator between the independent variable ‘English language use by non-native speakers’ and the outcome variable ‘creativity’. This is because the usage of English as an L2 by employees influences the

(13)

13 organizational knowledge sharing behavior, which then in turn influences the

creativity of this organization. Consequently, the following hypothesis states:

Hypothesis 2b: The association between English language use and creativity is mediated by knowledge sharing.

Knowledge sharing and creativity have been treated as almost inseparable by many scholars of communication science (Martinez, 2013; Chowdhury, 2005; Ma, 2013). Knowledge sharing plays such a crucial role because “it enables people to capitalize on existing knowledge bases residing within and outside the organization, thus enhancing their capacity to come up with creative solutions [...]” (Carmeli, 2013, p. 96). In other words, the exchange and articulation of ideas enables a company to develop new products, be innovative and market competitive. In contrast, without knowledge sharing the capacity to exploit experience and expertise is made difficult (Hansen, 2002; Carmeli, 2013). Consequently, the following hypothesis states:

Hypothesis 2c: Organizational knowledge sharing positively affects creativity at the workplace.

Diversity Climate

Diversity is a multidimensional and dynamic concept with many features and characteristics (Cox, 1994). In the last years, researchers as well as companies have brought their attention in particular to cultural diversity at the workplace (Hofhuis et al., 2012). For companies cultural diversity is a two-sided phenomenon associated

(14)

14 with positive as well as negative outcomes within groups (Hofhuis et al., 2012). On the one hand, diversity can enhance creativity and flexibility in teams (Hofhuis et al, 2012, p.965). Due to different points of views, ideas and knowledge diverse groups can be more productive (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homan, 2004, Etsy, Griffin and Hirsch, 1995). On the other hand, companies face the challenge of managing a diverse workforce. Diversity can lead to increased managerial challenges, in which different cultural, ethnic and linguistic backgrounds as well as different values can contribute to misunderstandings and miscommunication. The diversity climate represents “the culture of diversity and inclusion of an organization” (Goyal and Shrivastava, 2013). In other words, the diversity climate presents the acceptance of diversity and to a certain extent the togetherness of the employees. A positive diversity climate is intolerant of workplace harassment and discrimination (Chin, 2009). Thus, in such an environment employees are more likely to communicate with colleagues and express ideas as they feel accepted and appreciated. Organizations with a positive diversity climate value human resource diversity and have an

organizational climate in which employees from different backgrounds feel welcomed and included (Hicks-Clarke and Iles, 2000). In contrast, a negative diversity climate conveys to employees that harassment and discrimination are tolerated by the organization (Chin, 2009).

Relating the discussion back to the creativity component, the diversity climate is assumed to be closely linked to two of the components of creativity, namely the creative process as well as situation. In addition, Lauring and Selmer (2012)

researched the effect of language management on diversity climate. They state that a common language and a consistent use by employees and managers will improve the

(15)

15 organization's diversity climate. However, their research is based on managed

multilingualism, hence follows the assumption that properly managed contact

between diverse groups will reduce intergroup problems and enhance interaction. This study however aims to fill the research gap of not focusing on management and leadership roles but exploring individual and group interactions caused by language diversity and the use of English language.

In this research, diversity climate functions as a moderator that is expected to affect the causal relationship between English language use and knowledge sharing. The second hypothesis suggests that the use of English language as an L2 at the workplace is negatively associated with knowledge sharing. A positive diversity climate however will enable the process of knowledge sharing as it reduces the fear of speaking up and increases the social inclusion and acceptance on group level. In other words, also employees with a low self perceived English language proficiency take part in the knowledge sharing at work, caused and supported by a positive diversity climate. Consequently, the last hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 3: Diversity climate positively moderates the association between English language use and knowledge sharing within the company.

(16)

16

Model: The role of English language use on creativity

Method

In this section I will first introduce the data employed in the study, as well as how these data were collected and describe the variables employed.

Research Design

An online survey was conducted, using the website Qualtrics. The survey was distributed online, via popular social network sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn. Additionally, the survey was sent out to different people via email who then also distributed it to friends and colleagues (snowball effect). No reward incentive was given to respondents. The survey was online for 3 weeks in November 2015.

Measures

The following part of the article provides an in-depth description of the variables used in the research model. The measurements for the variables are

(17)

17 explained as well example survey questions. Additionally, the Cronbach's alpha (α) indicates the reliability for the scales.

English language frequency

English language frequency is measured by using items of the research by Lauring and Selmer (2010). The variable consists of three items. English personal communication, which is asked in form of a direct question ‘Over the last two-week period, what percentage of time did you speak English in personal communications?’. English work-related communication is also asked in form of a direct question: ‘Over the last two-week period, what percentage of time did you speak English in work related communications?’. The response categories for both questions range from 0% = not at all to 100% = all the time (α = 0.76, M = 6.78, SD = 2.69). English

management communication is measured in a five-item, with a seven-point Likert-type scale. The response categories range from (1) = ‘Strongly disagree’ to (5) = ‘Strongly agree’. A sample item is ‘Departmental web pages are available in English’ (α = 0.72, M = 3.63, SD = 0.85).

English language proficiency

The respondents’ self-perceived English language proficiency was measured using a five-item scale from Yamao and Sekiguchi (2014). Respondents rated their self-perceived listening, writing, reading communication as well as overall English language proficiency on a five-point Likert-type scale. The original scale was a seven-point scale, however it was changed for this research in order to have consistent

(18)

5-18 point scales in the survey. Thus, the scale ranged from (1) = low to (5) = high (α= 0.91, M = 4.5, SD = 0.67).

Creativity

Creativity is measured in Individual Creativity (α = 0.86, M = 3.9, SD = 0.61) as well as Team Creativity (α = 0.94, M= 3.7, SD = 0.77). The scale is adapted from Zhou and George (2001), and specific items selected. Both aspects are measured in a 5 point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) = ‘totally disagree’ to (5) = ‘totally agree’. A sample item for individual creativity is ‘I often have new and innovative ideas’ and for team creativity ‘my team is a good source for creative ideas’. The Cronbach’s Alpha for the scale based on individual and team creativity is reliable because α = 0.86 (N = 10, M = 3.8, SD = 0.56).

Diversity Climate

Diversity climate is measured with six items, using a scale from Hofhuis et al. (2012). Responses were made on a 5 point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) =

‘totally disagree’ to (5) = ‘totally agree’. Sample items are ‘in this organization people understand and value different cultural backgrounds’ and ‘in this organization we openly discuss the employee's different cultures’ (α = 0.87, M = 3.81, SD = 0.67).

Knowledge Sharing

To measure participants’ self-perceived knowledge sharing, they were asked to rate their knowledge sharing behavior on a scale that was derived from earlier research (van den Hooff and Huysmann, 2007). The variable consists of eight items,

(19)

19 all with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) = ‘totally disagree’ to (5) = ‘totally agree’. Sample items are ‘I share information that I acquired with my colleagues’ and ‘I like to be kept fully informed of what my colleagues know’ (α = 0.67, M = 4.0, SD = 0.4).

CONTROL VARIABLES Period of employment

Measured in a direct question: “How long have you worked for the company up until now?” (Measured in month). The period of employment is chosen as a control variable because the longer a person worked for a company the more familiar he/she is with the culture and conditions (Burt, 2015).

Department Size

Size of department is applied as a control variable and measured by a direct open question. Controlling for the department size is important because research has shown that knowledge sharing can differ between small and large departments (Lauring and Selmer, 2012; Bettenhausen, 1991).

Respondents

Over a time period of three weeks, 141 respondents participated in the study. The criteria for participation were that the participants are over 18 years old and work in an organization. The first step before analyzing the data was to check for

inaccuracies. After excluding the responses with missing values (N=14), the dataset included 127 responses. Out of those 127 respondents, 84 were female (66%) and 43

(20)

20 were male (34%). The mean age of the respondents was 28.33 years (SD = 4.75) and ranged between 22 and 43 years. 71.1% of the respondents have been working at their current company for more than 6 month, out of which 30.7% work in their company for longer than two years at the point of the questionnaire (SD = 0.87). The average department size is 21 employees, ranging from 2 to 80 (SD = 17.02).

From the respondents, 16.5% have managerial responsibility over employees (N=21). The sample generally possesses a higher education, as 96.1% of the respondents hold a bachelor, master or PHD degree.

Results

The following part of this paper is divided in three parts, according with the

hypotheses. To test these, separate linear regression analysis were conducted as well as moderation and mediation analyses.

English language use and creativity

Hypothesis 1a assumed that the use of English language at work by non-native speakers is negatively related to creativity. In order to test this hypothesis, a new creativity variable was computed, combining individual and group creativity. A simple regression was calculated to predict creativity based on the use of English language by non-native speakers. No significant regression equation could be found (F (1, 125) = 0.85, p = 0.36). Hence, the first hypothesis has to be rejected.

Additionally, a regression analysis also was conducted with team creativity as the dependent variable. However, as well no significant regression equation could be found (F (1, 125) = 0.35, p = 0.55).

(21)

21 Hypothesis 1b assumed that the self perceived English language proficiency of an employee is negatively related to creativity. A simple regression was calculated to predict creativity based on employees self perceived English language proficiency. No significant regression equation could be found (F (1,125) = 0.43, p = 0.52).

In order to exclude the possibility of a suppressed effect, another analysis was conducted, controlling for department size. A new variable for department size was computed, with ‘0’ being departments with 24 or less employees and ‘1’ departments counting more than 25 employees. However, the results remained insignificant, because (F (2, 118) = 1.91, p = 0.2)

English language use and Knowledge Sharing

According to hypothesis 2a is the use of English language by non-native speakers negatively related to knowledge sharing within the organization. A simple regression was calculated to predict knowledge sharing based on the use of English language. No significant regression equation could be found (F (1, 125) = 3.1, p = 0.8). Additionally to the frequency of English language use, a linear regression was calculated to predict knowledge sharing based on employees self perceived English language proficiency. However, no significant regression equation could be found because p = 0.8. Hence, hypothesis 2a has can be not supported.

Hypothesis 2b states that the association between English language use and creativity is mediated by knowledge sharing. The mediational hypothesis was not supported. There was no significant indirect effect of English language use on creativity through knowledge sharing because F (1, 125) = 1.9, p= 0.21.

(22)

22 In order to check for a possible suppressed effect, a multiple regression was conducted, controlling for period of employment. A new variable ‘Employment Time’ was formed, with ‘0’ being in the company for less than two years (69.3%) and ‘1’ being in the department for more than two years (30.7%). However, there no suppressed effect was found because F (1.125) = 0.38, p = 0.36.

Hypothesis 2c states that knowledge sharing positively affects creativity. The linear regression model with knowledge sharing as dependent variable and creativity as independent variable is significant, F (1.125) = 5.51, p = 0.2, The regression model can therefore be used to predict employee creativity. However, the strength of the prediction is weak: 4,2% of the variation in creativity can be predicted by knowledge sharing (R2 = 0.42, b* = 0.21, t = 13.78, p = 0.2, 95% CI [0.02, 0.28]).

Diversity Climate

Hypothesis 3 states that diversity climate moderates the relationship between English language use and knowledge sharing. The test is conducted even though there was no significant association between English language use and knowledge sharing (Hypothesis 2a). However, including diversity climate as a moderator is expected to change these results. The moderation is conducted with the PROCESS macro tool (Hays). The moderation model with the predictor English language use and

knowledge sharing as dependent variable is not significant, because F (1,123) = 4.1, p = 0.17.

Conclusion and Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate possible effects of English language communication by non-native speakers on creativity on the workplace. It was

(23)

23 assumed that the effect of English language use by non-native speakers on creativity would be mediated by the organizational behavior knowledge sharing. Furthermore, it was assumed that the effect of English language use on knowledge sharing would be moderated by the diversity climate.

The effects of work related English language use by non-native speakers have been widely examined by researchers. Many studies focused on corporate language policies, Expats and group processes such as cohesiveness or exclusion. This study aimed to fill a gap in the literature by examining the effects on creativity. By also including the organizational behavior knowledge sharing as well as the taking into account the diversity climate, the research established a comprehensive and multifaceted model.

Hypothesis 1 stated that English language as a communication medium at work by non-native speakers would have negative effects on creativity. Employees might be reluctant to speak up and express their ideas, thus hinder or not contribute to the process of creativity. However, no significant support was found for this

assumption. More specifically, the hypothesis was tested for both English language use related variables, proficiency of employees English as well as frequency of English language use at the workplace. However, also in separate tests the results were not significant. One reason for this result might be caused by the sample. Only 9.4% of the respondents (N = 12) rated their self-perceived English language

proficiency as ‘low’ or ‘little low’. Another reason for no effect is that English nowadays has become the ‘lingua franca’ or ‘English Language Standard’ (ELS) of communication. Most practices of ELS communication takes place between non-native speakers of English, since only one out of four English speakers is actually

(24)

24 native (Seidlhofer, 2005). Thus, the expected effect English language use of non-natives on creativity might be absent due to the normality of the situation. On the other hand, research by Rasmussen and Andersen (2004) also identified language as a barrier in communication, and thus hindering creativity. In their case study they identified cases miscommunication as well as delayed or not transmitted messages.

Thus, the initial hypotheses of this research are in line with their findings. What differentiated the two researches however is the country. Rasmussen and Andersen conducted their research in Denmark and Spain, where employees from Spain constituted a group with lower English language proficiency. The current research was conducted in the Netherlands. According to a Eurobarometer Report on languages in Europe (2002) do 90% of the Dutch citizens speak English well enough to have a conversation. The rate for Spain in contrast is 22%. Thus, the ‘normality’ of speaking English in the Netherlands, whether for Dutch citizens or expatriates, is so high that using English as an L2 is not regarded as such even though it is.

Hypothesis 2a stated that the use of English language by non-native speakers is negatively related to knowledge sharing within the organization. Again, employees are expected to be more passive when having to express themselves in a different language than their mother tongue. No significant support was found for this

assumption. The cause for the absence of an effect could partially be explained by the fact that this research solely examined internal knowledge sharing. Nowadays,

employees and companies increasingly participate in external knowledge sharing (Cummings, 2004). An additional aspect is the increasing movement to digital knowledge sharing. Employees communicate via email, text message or instant messaging, and thus are often not required to verbally speak English. Hence, the

(25)

25 employee can take the needed time to phrase sentences and use dictionaries or

spelling programs. Even though the respondents were asked to separately rate their self-perceived English language proficiency in written, spoken and understanding, the results do not show any significant differences.

Hypothesis 2b stated that the association between English language use and creativity is mediated by knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing has been regarded an important component for creative processes but also being exposed to effects of multilingualism. However, there was no significant support be found for this

assumption. This outcome does not go in line with the general research stream, which argues that creativity and knowledge sharing are inseparable from each other. More specifically, creativity requires the support of knowledge (Wang and Noe, 2010). However, these assumptions are based on individual creativity. The research at hand also investigated group creativity, for which communication is a vital antecedent. However, the specific use of English language at the workplace alone did not yield significance. Nevertheless, the results of this analysis should be taken further and combined with other variables such as the medium of knowledge sharing or asking for how comfortable employees are speaking English in front of their colleagues. Thus, even though the results of this research did not find a significant result, one can argue that they are part of a broader picture. Thus, this research provided a first puzzle piece for further examinations of L2 use, knowledge sharing and creativity.

Hypothesis 2c argued that knowledge sharing has a positive effect on creativity. Conducting a linear regression analysis, a significant effect between the two variables was found. This finding goes in line with previous research in

(26)

26 study on benefits of sharing ideas. Knowledge sharing is an important factor for a group or individual to be creative. This significant result also suggests that the direction of the research model is right and again stresses the fact that knowledge sharing should taken into account when examining creativity.

Hypothesis 3 assumed that a positive diversity climate moderates the association between English language use and knowledge sharing within the company. Openness to other cultures and different backgrounds was expected to positively influence the process of knowledge sharing. However, no significant effect could be found and thus hypothesis 3 had to be rejected.

Conversely to the findings at hand, previous research did find a moderation effect of diversity climate on the effects of organizational diversity on productivity. Logically, a similar result was expected for knowledge sharing as outcome variable. Creativity and productivity are closely bound, since the creative process can also be described as the production of ideas (Amabile, 1988). However, a possible cause of the not significant result is the way diversity climate was measured and treated in this research. Measuring the diversity climate alone might actually not give enough inside in the organizational structure and degree of diversity. Consequently, future research should include variables measuring the number of nationalities or languages. We do not have information what the ‘degree’ of diversity in the respondents organizations has, which could be an important element in analyzing the role of diversity climate in the association between English language use and creativity.

(27)

27 Limitations

There are several limitations on this survey-based research study. The sample was chosen convenient, meaning that there was no special approach for instance for a company that would have a large variety of employees. It was distributed on social media and generally reached the same type of people. This is clear when looking at the education, self-perceived English language proficiency and age group. Even though two control variables (department size and period of employment) were used in order to exclude possible suppressed effects, no effect could be found. Generally, a sample size of N = 127 can be regarded as representative. However, in the case of this study, the sample is too similar and would have needed to be larger and more diverse in terms of respondents.

Another concern involves the measurement of English language use. The aim of the study was to find out whether there is an effect of the use of English language by non-native speakers on creativity. However, the variable only measures the quantity of English language use. For the depth of the research it would have been important to also include a variable concerned covering the component ‘creative situation’. There might be a suppressed effect due to the group size in which English is talked or the familiarity of the employees.

Another limitation of the research is the missing examination of personal character traits. When researching behavior in a group and in particular the spoken communication behavior in a group it is important to know how the respondent perceives him/herself. Hence, a question like ‘On a scale from one to ten, how comfortable do you feel speaking up in front of a small/large group at work’? Future research should take this into account, since it is interesting to see to what extend the

(28)

28 personal character traits interact with using an L2. However, since the research of the paper was set in a corporate communication context, research would need to be done in the field of organizational work psychology.

Practical implications

Even though not proving the hypotheses but one, the current study helps to understand the importance of language management in multinational organizations. It specifically provides inside in different organizational behaviors in connection to the English language use of non-native speakers. Companies already devote time and effort in language management. However, what reviewing existing literature and the studies at hand suggest is to look at the departments in depth and check whether their communication in English is sufficient. Language policies, due to their top down approach, run the risk of overseeing people. Thus, managers should put effort in understanding whether their teams linguistically communicate sufficiently.

Literature

Amabile,T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Staw, B. & Cummings, L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Angouri, J. (2013). The multilingual reality of the multinational workplace: language policy and language use. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

(29)

29 Angouri, J. (2014). Multilingualism in the workplace: Language practices in

multilingual contexts. De Gruyter Mouton: Multilingua, 33, 1-9

Bettenhausen, K. (1991). Five years of group research: what we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17(2), 345-38.

Brown, R. (1989) Creativity. Handbook of Creativity (1989 Edition). New York: Plenum Press

Burt, C. (2015). The Initial Employment Period: Behaviors, Familiarity, Adaptation and Trust Development. Charm: Springer International Publishing.

Carmeli, A. & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The leadership quarterly, 18, 35-48.

Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R. & Reiter-Palmon R. (2013). Leadership, Creative Problem-Solving Capacity, and creative performance: the importance of knowledge sharing. Human Resource Management, 52(1), 95–122.

Crosby, A. (2001). Creativity and Performance in Industrial Organization. Oxon: Routledge.

(30)

30 Chowdhury, S. (2005).The role of affect- and cogni- tion-based trust in complex

knowledge sharing. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 310–326.

Cummings, R. (2004). Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352–364.

Distefano, J. & Maznevski, M. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global management. Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45–63.

doi: 10.1108/13563280610713879

Eisenberger, R., Haskins, F. & Gambleton, P. (1995). Promised Reward and Creativity: Effects of Prior Experience. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35, 308–325.

Etsy, K., Griffin, R. & Hirsch, M. (1995). Workplace Diversity. Avon, MA: Adams Media

European Commission (2002). Europeans and their Languages: Special Eurobarometer 386. Retrieved 1st December 2015 from

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf

Feely, A.J. and Harzing, A.W. (2003). Language management in multinational companies. Cross-cultural Management; An International Journal, 10(2), 37-52.

(31)

31 Fredriksson R., Barner-Rasmussen, W., Piekkari, R, (2006). The multinational

corporation as a multilingual organization. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 11 (4), 406-423.

Goyal, S., & Shrivastava, S. (2013). Organizational Diversity Climate: Review of Models and Measurement. Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research, 2(5).

Hansen, M.T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13, 232–248.

Hansen, S., Avital, M. (2005). Share and Share Alike: The Social and Technological Influences on Knowledge Sharing Behavior. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 5(13).

Hargadon, A., & Bechky, B. (2006). When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work. Organization

Science, 17(4), 484-500. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0200

Henderson, J. (2005). Language diversity in international management teams.

International Studies of Management and Organization, 35(1), 66–82.

Hofhuis, J., van der Zee, K. & Otten, S. (2012). Social identity patterns in culturally diverse organizations: the role of diversity climate. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42 (4), 964-989.

(32)

32 Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A conceptual framework.

Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359

Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. (2004). Developing language strategies for international companies: The contribution of translation studies. Journal of World Business, 39(4), 414–430.

Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly. 40, 256–82.

Kaplan, R. B., and R. B. Baldauf (2005). Language Policy and Planning in Hungary, Finland and Sweden: Some Common Issues. In Language Planning and Policy in Europe: Finland, Hungary and Sweden (edited by R. B. Kaplan, 6 21) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kivimäki, M., Länsisalmi, H., Elovainio, M., Heikkilä, A., Lindström, K., Harisalo, Sipilä, K., & Puolimatka, L. (2000). Communication as a determinant of organizational innovation. R&D Management, 30, 33-42.

Kurtzberg, T. (2005). Feeling Creative, Being Creative: An Empirical Study of Diversity and Creativity in Teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 51-65, doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_5

(33)

33 Kurtzberg, T., & Amabile, T. (2001). From Guilford to Creative Synergy: Opening

the Black Box of Team-Level Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3-4), 285-294. doi: 10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_06

Lauring, J. & Selmer, J. (2010). Multicultural organizations: Common language and group cohesiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(3), 267-284.

Lauring, J. & Selmer, J. (2012). International Language Management and diversity climate in multicultural organizations. International Business Review, 21(2), 156–166.

Lonsmann, D. (2014). Linguistic diversity in the international workplace: Language ideologies and processes of exclusion. Multilingua, 33(1-2), 89-116.

Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Kankaanrant, A. (2012). Language as an issue in

international internal communication: English or local language? If English, what English? Public Relations Review, 38, 262–269.

Ma, Y., Cheng, W., Ribbens, B., & Zhou, J. (2013). Linking Ethical Leadership to Employee Creativity: Knowledge Sharing and Self-Efficacy as Mediators. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 41(9), pp. 1409-1419.

MacKinnon, D.W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. American Psychologist, (20), 227-281.

(34)

34 Marschan, R., Welch, D. and Welch, L. (1997). Language: the forgotten factor in

multinational management. European Management Journal, 15(5), 591-598.

Martinez, M. (2013). Solver engagement in knowledge sharing in crowdsourcing communities: Exploring the link to creativity. Research Policy, 44,1419–1430

Martins, L., Milliken, F., Wiesenfeld, B., and Salgado, S. (2003). Racioethnic

diversity and group members’ experiences: the role of the racioethnic diversity of the organizational context. Group and Organization Management, 28(1), 75–106.

Mills, C. (2002). The hidden dimensions of Blue-collar Sensemaking about Workplace Communication. International Journal of Business

Communication, 39(3), 288-313. doi: 10.1177/002194360203900301

Mor-Barak, M., Cherin, D., and Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(1), 82–104.

Oxford Dictionary (2015) Retrieved 22. January 2015 from

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/knowledge

Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 633–646.

(35)

35 Piekkari, R., & Zander, L. (Eds.). (2005). Speaking in tongues: The importance of

language in international management processes. International Studies of Management and Organization, 35(1), 10–27.

Sanden, G. (2015). Corporate Language Policies - What are they? Journal Economics, Business and Management, 3(11).

Sawyer, K. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1995). Shifting the Focus from Individual to Organizational Society. Creative Actions in Organizations (Eds: Ford, C. & Goia, D. pp. 167-172). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal Volume 59(4). doi:10.1093/elt/cci064

Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662–673.

Simonsen, H. (2009). Communication Policy, Corporate Language Policy and Cooperation Information Portal: A Holy Trinity in Corporate

Communications?. Journal of Communication Management, 13(3), 200 217. doi:10.1108/13632540910976662.

Sosik, J. J., Avolito, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1998). Inspiring group creativity:

Comparing anonymous and identified electronic brain-storming. Small Group

(36)

36 Van den Hooff, B. & Huysmann, M. (2007). Managing knowledge sharing: emergent

and engineering approaches. Information & Management, 46, 1-8.

Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 115-131.

Welch, D. & Welch, L. (2008). The importance of language in international

knowledge transfer. MIR: Management International Review, 48 (3), 339-360.

Yamao, S. & Sekiguchi, T. (2014). Employee commitment to corporate globalization: the role of English language proficiency and human resource practices.

Journal of World Business, 50, 168–179.

Zhou, J. & George, J. (2001). When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity:

Encouraging the Expression of Voice. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682-696.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

A dummy variable indicating pre/post crisis and an interaction variable between this dummy variable and the idiosyncratic risk variable are added to a Fama-Macbeth regression

Bij de inventarisatie van het bromidegehalte in kassla uitgevoerd door het Centraal Bureau van de Tuinbouwveilingen in het seizoen 1979/1980 bleek het aantal monsters afkomstig

In de Agromere Arena ontwikkelden belanghebbenden samen met het onderzoeksteam van Wageningen UR een nieuwe visie op de rol van landbouw in een stedelijke omgeving, een visie op

Er is tijdens het onderzoek ook gekeken of het aantal goede spenen van de zeug invloed heeft op de uitval van zogende biggen, Op het Proef- station voor de Varkenshouderij wordt er

Het Bronzen Kruis, ingesteld in 1940, wordt toegekend aan Nederlandse militairen, die zich ten behoeve van de Nederlandse Staat door moedig of beleidvol optreden tegen de

In kaart brengen welke elementen van de werkwijze daadwerkelijk opgevolgd worden in de aanpak van MDA++ en of deze nieuwe aanpak een positief effect heeft (afname geweld in gezinnen

Expert commentary: Published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of QIV suggests that switching from TIV to QIV would be a valuable intervention from both the public health and

The metrics under which we evaluate the reviewed research are algorithm classification type, deployment scenario, resource management criteria (resource allocation,