!
The Ramifications of Language Barriers on MNC’s
Intra-organisational Knowledge Sharing:
Towards The Development of a Strategic Language System
!
Eveline van Gaal 11934867
MSc in Business Administration - International Management Track
First Supervisor: Dr. Mashiho Mihalache Second Supervisor: Dr. Vittoria Scalera Amsterdam Business School
I. Statement of originality
This document is written by Eveline van Gaal who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
II. Abstract
Intra-organisational knowledge sharing in a multinational corporation is more complex vis-à-vis corporations operating in a single market, as scope and distance increase the potential pool of barriers. Language has been identified as one of these barriers, however, research on the extent of language diversity in MNCs is deemed scarce and incomplete. This paper therefore took an exploratory, qualitative approach in an attempt to answer the main research question: “What Are the Ramifications of Language Barriers on the Intra-Organisational
Knowledge Sharing of a Multinational Corporation (MNC)?” To abstract data, nine
semi-structured interviews have taken place at a Dutch, high tech multinational and two of their subsidiaries, all three embedded in linguistically diverse environments. Through the interpretation of the findings, the following conclusions can be drawn: linguistic diversity within the multinational network negatively affects the intra-organisation knowledge sharing; these ramifications can be both direct (e.g. misunderstandings, and/or zoning out) as well as indirect (e.g. loss of identity; greater relational distance; and/or cultivating imbalance in the HQ-subsidiary relationship). Based on the results of this study, organisations are encouraged to invest more time and money in adopting a fitting language strategy as part of their corporate tactics. The main preferred language strategy resulting from this research posits the employment of a functional language complemented by subunit languages, to maintain local responsiveness. However, preferred workways are highly dependent on context and culture, and it is therefore recommended to carefully consider these external forces prior to the selection of a fitting language strategy, as well as consider language strategy as a construct complementing other organisational strategies in a flexible fashion.
III. Executive Summary
This document will present a summarised format of the full research report on the ramifications of language barriers on intra-organisational knowledge sharing. Here within will be discussed the initial problem formation, followed by the approach taken to abstract new data. Findings will be compared to existing theory in an attempt to answer the research question: “What Are the Ramifications of Language Barriers on the Intra-Organisational
Knowledge Sharing of a Multinational Corporation (MNC)?” This summary will be
concluded with relevant and practical managerial solutions, as applicable in a Western context.
I. The Problem
Knowledge transfer is an important aspect of international business as it allows multinationals to source assets across the boundaries of their international area of activity, to thereby reap from the country-specific advantages of one, or multiple, of their cross-border subsidiaries. Semi-globalisation, however, impedes resources from flowing through international markets with equal ease as they do in their respective domestic markets; a construct also applicable to intangible resources, such as knowledge. One of the identified barriers to knowledge sharing is language diversity, MNCs are often by nature embedded in linguistic diverse environments, heightening barriers in the ease and effectiveness of intra-organisational communication. The field of language and business, however, is considered to be devoid of both theory and data, deemed scarce and incomplete, existing literature has therefore pleaded for more research on issues related to language choice, and the general value and benefits of language strategies in multinationals (Fredriksson, Barner-Rasmussen, and Piekkari, 2006). This research is a respond to this plead, with the objective to further explore the (in)direct ramifications of language barriers on an MNC’s intra-organisational knowledge sharing, and potential managerial solutions to alleviate these ramifications.
II. The Approach
The methodological philosophy of this exploratory, qualitative research design is based on interpretivism. The study took an inductive approach, moving from observations to the
construction of a theoretical framework. The sample population has been retrieved from a Dutch, high-tech multinational. Nine employees, residing in three different organisational levels, embedded in three linguistically separated environments, were interviewed. The researcher made sense of the raw, textual data by exploring and interpreting the transcribed findings in order to produce a valid and reliable theoretical framework.
III. The Findings
Once the extensive data was condensed into a summarised format, links between theory, findings and the research objectives could be explored. In line with theory, it can be concluded that language barriers indeed impede intra-organisational knowledge from flowing with ease and effectiveness through the multinational network. A set of direct, as well as indirect ramifications have been identified, ranging from misunderstandings, to increased relational distance. Newly identified concepts include how language diversity leads to lesser perceived approachability; to zoning out; and how the management of language diversity may lead to a fear of loss of language purity, resulting in a resistance to adopt a commonly utilised language. Apart from adopting a common corporate language, organisations can employ a functional language complemented by subunit language use; the implementation of language training; selective employee selection; and/or moving employees across border. A newly mentioned approach to managing language diversity is recommending the network to partially adapt to a subunit language when being physically present in that subunit. This is not to replace a functional language, but does display greater cultural sensitivity, thereby enhancing extra-unit social capital, and lowering the perceived HQ-subsidiary power distortion.
IV. The Recommendations
First and foremost, this paper highlights the importance for managers to recognise language as a significant force of both direct as well as indirect ramifications on knowledge sharing, and organisational are therefore encouraged to act adequately. Based on the dataset of this paper, the most favourable strategic language system is the employment of a functional language with the use of subunit languages - to allow for aligned, internal communication
whilst encouraging local responsiveness. Additionally, movement of human capital across borders (either physically, or facilitated through increased cross-unit, dispersed interactions) is to decrease relational distance, whilst enhancing language practice and thereby skill improvement.
It must be noted that both context and culture affect preferred and effective workways dramatically, and that our recommended approach should therefore not be considered a one-size-fits-all. Rather, managers are to recognise language as a force in interplay with other organisational strategies, and are encouraged to consider both internal and external context and culture when strategising language.
V. The Conclusion
The main contribution of this paper is to highlight that language diversity indeed has severe ramifications on intra-organisational knowledge sharing in the multinational corporation. It does so in both a direct, as well as an indirect fashion; stressing the dimensional transcendent considerations managers should take prior to incorporating language systems in their organisational practices. This paper recommends for language strategy not to be solely seen as a decoupled strategy but also as an ingrained part of other strategic choices; requiring great organisational flexibility and attentiveness.
Future research is encouraged to quantify both sample and industry size to reach greater topic saturation, as this is unlikely to have been obtained within the scope of this specific research. Replicating the study in non-Western cultures is additionally recommended.
IV. Acknowledgement
I want to gratefully express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Mashiho Mihalache, for guiding me through the research process. I always want to extend my acknowledgement to my fellow student Thomas Geier, who helped contextualising the concept during the start of the year, collaborating on the foundations of the research.
A major thank you to the staff of the high-tech multinational at which the data has been collected; welcoming me warmly and providing me with the resources where needed.
Thank you again,
Table of Content
I. Statement of Originality 1
II. Abstract 2
III. Executive Summary 3
IV. Acknowledgement 6
Chapter 1. Introduction 9
1.1 Introduction 9
1.2 Background to the Study 10
1.3 Research Problem 13
1.3.1 Research Questions 15
Chapter 2. Literature Review 16
2.1 Theoretical Framework 16 2.1.1 Research Question 1 17 2.1.2 Research Question 2 20 2.1.3 Research Question 3 22 2.2 Conceptual Model 26 Chapter 3. Methodology 27 3.1 Research Design 27
3.1.1 Research Philosophy and Justification 28 3.1.2 Research Approach and Justification 29 3.1.3 Research Strategy and Justification 30
3.1.4 Research Purpose 31
3.2 Operationalisation of Concepts 32 3.3 Performed Research Activities 34 3.3.1 Sampling Methods and Respondents 34 3.4 Critical Methodological Evaluation 35 3.4.1 On Methods and Sampling 35
3.4.2 On the Data Collecting Process 37 3.4.3 Credibility of Research Findings 38
Chapter 4. Analysis of Research Results 39
4.1 Data Analysis Strategy and Procedure 40 4.2 Analysis of Research Findings 41 4.2.1 Analysis of Research Findings: General Barriers to Knowledge Sharing 42 4.2.2 Analysis of Research Findings: Effects of Language Barriers on MNC
Knowledge Sharing 47
4.2.3 Analysis of Research Findings: Strategic Language Systems 53 4.3 Chapter Conclusion and Adapted Conceptual Model 58
Chapter 5. Conclusion 61
5.1 Research Contributions 61
5.2 Managerial Recommendations 63
5.3 Limitations 65
5.4 Further Research 66
5.5 Personal Reflection on Overall Research Study 67
Bibliography 68
Appendix 83
I Theory Overview on Intra-Organisational Knowledge Sharing Barriers 83
II Blank Interview Guide 84
III Blank Codebook 86
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Knowledge is known to be a critical organisational asset, providing sustainable advantages in competitive and dynamic economies (e.g., Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Foss and Pedersen, 2002; Grant, 1996; Spender and Grant, 1996). However, in order for multinationals to exploit and capitalise on these knowledge-based resources, employees are to first transfer it across the network (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2005; Damodaran and Olphert, 2000; Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Various organisations have therefore started to invest considerable amounts of time and money in knowledge management initiatives, per example in the development of knowledge management systems and/or knowledge sharing strategies. In spite of substantial investments, it has been estimated that billions of dollars remain to be wasted yearly by Fortune 500 companies, due to knowledge sharing failures (Babcock, 2004). These failures can be a result of a large variety of complexities, and arguably, multinational corporations (MNC) are subjected to a broader range of these, vis-à-vis corporations operating in a single market. The international market is namely thought to be caught in the crosscurrent of globalisation and localisation, a state of neither complete integration nor complete isolation, creating incomplete cross-border markets (Ghemawat, 2003), therethrough impeding products and services from flowing through international markets with equal ease as they do in their respective domestic markets (Mourdoukoutas and Mourdoukoutas, 2004). This so called semi-globalisation immobilises both tangible resources, such as labor (Caves, 1996), as well as intangible resources, such as knowledge (Dunning, 1998). Addressing these complexities should therefore be of interest for managers and scholars alike.
As it can be assumed that a large percentage of communication in international corporations takes place internally (Louhiala-Salminen, 2002), this paper will focus on intra-organisational, rather than extra-intra-organisational, knowledge sharing. Intra-organisational knowledge sharing has been defined as “the timely and efficient diffusion of the
(external-network) learning among members of the network” (Cho and Lee, 2004, p. 1), excellency in
the ability to perform these transfers is thought to be the basis for creating sustainable competencies (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995); facilitating organization control across subsidiaries (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000); and serving as an input for innovation creation (von Hippel, 1994; Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1988; Lawson and Lorenz, 1999); ultimately leading to the development of sustainable, competitive advantages, and international business growth (Kogut and Zander, 1993).
1.2 Background to the Study
Over time, the traditional view of how an MNC creates value from knowledge has evolved, alongside with its view of the subsidiary (e.g., Almeida and Phene, 2004; Birkinshaw and Hood, 2001; Cantwell and Piscitello 1999). The previously assumed linear sequence of knowledge flowing from the headquarters to the subsidiaries, where subsidiaries are solely to apply and exploit knowledge (e.g., Patel and Pavitt 1991; Vernon, 1966) has been widely challenged. Perlmutter's (1969) 'geocentric' firm, Bartlett and Ghoshal's (1989) 'transnational' corporation, and Hedlund's (1994) 'N-form' corporation theories all put forward the notion that knowledge is being sourced from various locations in the network and developed continuously in all parts of an organisation, and therefrom shared across the corporation. Literature increasingly acknowledges subsidiaries in their pivotal role of sourcing, learning and generating knowledge for diffusion and exploitation across the larger organisation
(Mudambi and Navarra, 2004; Mudambi, 2008), adding complexity to the management of intra-organisational knowledge transfer. In this paper, knowledge is defined as “expertise
(e.g., skills and capabilities) or external market data of strategic value” (Gupta and
Govindarajan, 1991, p. 773). The management of knowledge is considered to be more complex for MNCs than for domestic firms (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Lazarova and Tarique, 2005; Rabbiosi and Santangelo, 2013), as they face greater operational scopes (Jiménez-Jiménez, Martínez-Costa, and Sanz-Valle, 2014), and are more commonly subjected to higher coordination costs and unique transfer barriers (Jones and Hill, 1988). As stated before, Ghemawat (2003) explains that competing in multiple countries differs vastly from competing in a single country due to the international market being in a state of semi-globalisation. If markets were to be completely integrated, international businesses would be able to adopt a ‘mainstream’ strategy, or in other words, a single-country base case strategy in which the world would effectively function as ‘one large country’ (Ghemawat, 2003: p.147). In this ‘country’, products and services would flow with greatest ease, as boundaries and barriers would not exist. In a fully globalised world, knowledge would be available for anyone, anywhere (Ghemawat, 2003), and barriers caused by, for example, multilinguality would be absent.
In our current, semi-globalised world however, this is far from truth; location-specific advantages still need to be transferred across borders in order for the MNC to potentially make use of it. This crossing of borders hinders knowledge from being effortlessly and timely diffused in both the extra-, as well as the intra-network of the organisation. These, and other barriers which prevent markets from being fully integrated, are referred to as distances; also defined as “the extent of differences between country pairs” (Hutzschenreuter, Kleindienst, and Lange, 2016, p. 160). These distances can bring complexity (Vermeulen and Barkema
2002) and friction (Shenkar, Luo, and Yeheskel, 2008) to cross-border activities, increasing the difficulty of achieving and sustaining successful international practices. Research has shown that distances have severe ramifications on intra-organisational knowledge exchange (Dinur, Hamilton, and Inkpen, 2009; Kirkman, Lowe, and Gibson, 2006; Tihanyi Griffith, and Russell, 2005) and information flows (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977; Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975) as they impede the application of knowledge (Szulanski, 1996) and disrupt the transferability of innovation (Dellestrand and Kappen, 2012), whilst heightening management costs (e.g. Hutzschenreuter and Voll, 2008; Johanson and Vahlne, 2009).
Effective international knowledge transfer is thought to rely heavily on effective intra-organisational linguistic communication across borders and cultures within an MNC’s network (Welch and Welch, 2008). Language is considered to be an indispensable ingredient for these internal communication flows; shaping organisational processes, competitive activities, information exchange, and intra-corporate value (Luo and Shenkar, 2006). West and Graham (2004) therefore decided to single out the concept of language to investigate the definite implications global multilinguality has on the perceived distance between countries (also referred to as linguistic distance), and therethrough inevitably on international, organisational performance. West and Graham (2004) concluded that language affects culture, and differences in languages therefore contribute to an increase in cultural distance between two countries. Luo and Shenkar (2006) opposingly say that language is a strategic choice, a macro variable which should be decoupled from culture altogether. Feely and Harzing (2006) support the latter by urging researchers to consider language as an independent variable. Whether or not language fosters cultural differences, or is solely a strategic choice; research has proven that multilinguality does cultivate barriers, which are likely to disrupt an MNC’s intra-organisational knowledge transfer. In many international
businesses, however, language strategies are not employed (Harzing and Feely, 2008); a managerial absence likely to impede the transfer of knowledge within the network. It can therefore be argued that understanding linguistic barriers in the MNC network, and how to manage these barriers, will benefit an MNC’s intra-organisational knowledge sharing.
1.3 Research Problem
As mentioned, knowledge transfer is an important aspect of international business as it allows multinationals to source assets across the boundaries of their international area of activity, to thereby reap from the country-specific advantages of one, or multiple, of their cross-border subsidiaries. These transfers can greatly improve an international firm’s innovation practices and lead to sustainable advantages, however, require extensive intra-organisational communication. A substantial part of an MNC’s intra-organisational knowledge is contextual and tacit in nature (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000), and accurate transfer of this knowledge relies greatly on the adequate conveyment and sense-making of its meaning (Argote and Ingram, 2000). As an MNC is generally made up of headquarters and subsidiary units, operating in a spatially separated network, they are often embedded in different language environment. Janssens, Lambert, and Steyaert (2004) explain that “international companies
are multilingual organizations in which language diversity needs to be organized” (p. 415),
however organisations generally lack a strategy to address language barriers effectively, giving limited opportunities for its employees to interact internationally and therethrough develop social capital (Kostova and Roth, 2003). It can be argued that reducing language barriers in a multinational network will positively affect intra-organisational communication and hence, knowledge sharing, however, surprisingly little research has been conducted on how language diversity actually impacts multinational business practices (Harzing and Feely,
2008). The field of language and business is considered to be devoid of both theory and data (Harzing and Feely, 2008) and research on the extent of language diversity in MNCs is deemed scarce and incomplete (Harzing and Pudelko, 2013). Existing literature has therefore pleaded for more research on issues related to language choice, and the general value and benefits of language strategies in multinationals (Fredriksson, Barner-rasmussen, and Piekkari, 2006). There have additionally been calls to contextualise language, rather than regarding it as isolated text or speech events (Bargiela-Chiappini and Nickerson, 2002; Nickerson, 2005), as little research has systematically analysed the impact of language on substantive aspects of international business, such as knowledge transfer (Harzing and Pudelko, 2013) and knowledge flows (Reiche, Harzing, and Pudelko, 2015). The concept of international language barriers, and its managerial implications, have been described as ‘the
most neglected field in management’ (Reeves and Wright, 1996), ‘the forgotten factor’ (Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, and Welch, 1997), and ‘the management orphan’ (Verrept, 2000). Linguistic scholars are said to be “suffering from a reluctance, an aversion it almost seems, to study language behaviour in organisational and occupational settings” (Holden, 1987, p. 243). Despite the evident relevance of the topic for international
business, the aversion to the cross-disciplinary nature of the subject arguably explains the relative lack of research in the field.
In this paper we aim to contribute to this field of research by exploring and enhancing our understanding of the impact multilinguality has on an MNC’s intra-organisational knowledge sharing, as well as by identifying managerial solutions to overcome these barriers where possible. Collected fielddata is to provide theoretical support for the composition of potential solutions aimed at the alleviation of organisational language barriers, to therethrough improve
intra-organisational knowledge sharing. The therefore undertaken literature review is structured along the following questions:
RQ. What Are the Ramifications of Language Barriers on the Intra-Organisational Knowledge Sharing of a Multinational Corporation (MNC)?
Q1. What are barriers to knowledge sharing in multinational organisations?
Q2. What effects do language barriers have on intra-organisational knowledge sharing?
Q3. Which strategic measures can multinational organisations take to overcome language barriers effectively?
The article will be structured as following: Firstly, existing literature regarding (language) barriers in MNC knowledge sharing will be reviewed, where we will examine if, and how, language barriers affect the multinational organisation, and which managerial structures may alleviate these barriers. Secondly, the sample and data collection process will be presented, justified, and critically evaluated. Thereafter, an analysis of the acquired research results aims to complement justify, or dispute existing theory in answering the above proposed research questions. Lastly, the paper will be concluded by discussing the broader implications these results have on the strategy of multinational corporations, and on the field of language in international business research. First, existing literature will be reviewed.
Chapter 2. Literature Review
2.1 Theoretical Framework
With the rise of the network organisation, it has been widely recognised that knowledge developed in one part of the organisation can be exploited in another part, on another location (Atamer and Schweiger, 2003; Frost, 1998; Håkanson and Nobel, 2001; Yamin, 1997). However, highly flexible organisational capabilities are required to embrace a variety of forms of knowledge management, as they often call for the extensive orchestration of cross-functional integration capabilities across multiple centers of knowledge at dispersed locations, as well as intense market and technology interaction (Gerybadze, 2004). There have therefore been numerous examples where knowledge transfer practices have not accomplished their objective to manage a firm’s intangibles, mainly due to a large variety of barriers (Riege, 2007). These barriers impede effective management and therethrough hinder international intra-organisation knowledge transfer; however, according to Riege (2005; 2007) these barriers have received little attention despite academica acknowledging how addressing them has positive effects on an organisation’s creative organisational processes (Saemundsson and Holmén, 2007), and their return on investment (Riege, 2007).
Prior to discussing the impact language barriers have on intra-organisational knowledge sharing, this paper will review some of the generally identified barriers, to provide the fundamentals of a broader understanding regarding the context language barriers may be embedded in, the multi-layered influences which may be at play.
Q1. What are barriers to knowledge sharing in a multinational organisation?
Szulanski (2003) uses the concept of knowledge barriers to describe a set of factors which explain why knowledge might not transfer effectively. Measuring the (in)effectiveness of knowledge transfer activities is, however, considered a strenuous process, as the potential reasons to (in)effectiveness can differ vastly between companies and industries (Argote, Beckman, and Epple, 1990; Argote and Ingram, 2000). Research has attempted to explore and document a variety of potential barriers nonetheless; which can be concluded to reside in three different levels (Riege, 2005), namely technological; organisational; and/or individual. All three categories are to potentially ramificate intra-organisational knowledge sharing in a variety of ways, and are not mutually exclusive.
At the technological level, knowledge barriers are thought to result from, among others, unrealistic expectations of the functionality of IT systems; the general unwillingness to use applications or systems; and/or; due to difficulties in developing, integrating, and modifying knowledge-sharing technology-based systems altogether (Riege, 2005). Riege (2005) emphasises how technology should be regarded as being of as much of an issue in knowledge sharing as employees and/or the organisation can be.
At an organisational level, knowledge sharing barriers are often linked to economic viability; lack of infrastructure and/or resources; the physical environment; and/or organisational culture (e.g. Chase, 1998; Delong and Fahey, 2000; Gurteen, 1999; McDermott and O’Dell, 2001). They can additionally result from a company’s lack of social communities (Kogut and Zander, 1996), which emphasises the importance to allow for the development of social capital and the facilitation of internal social interaction in order to propel the creation and sharing of knowledge (Argote et al., 1990; Ingram and Baum, 1997;
Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). This development of social capital minimises knowledge sharing barriers by enhancing the overall level of collaboration within companies regardless of employee attitudes, age, level of education, experience, and supervisor and team support (e.g. De Long and Fahey, 2000; Michailova and Husted, 2003; Sveiby and Simons, 2002), whilst simultaneously increasing the organisational trust among employees which is often needed to share knowledge in the first place (e.g. von Krogh and Roos, 1996; Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Urch-Druskat and Wolff, 2001). Literature has recognised how especially for larger firms the development and dissemination of knowledge relies heavily on intra-organisational social interactions and dialogue. Smaller firms tend to apply a more mechanistic approach; facilitating little dialogue compared to larger firms. For larger firms, as which an MNC can often be identified, sharing is mostly people-based and encouraged widely via the facilitation of workshops, discussion forums, training, and mentoring (McAdam and Reid, 2001).
At an individual or employee level, knowledge-sharing barriers often relate to an overemphasis on personal position statuses; lack of time; differences in national culture (among which has been identified language); or due to the absence of effective communication skills and/or social networks (e.g. Ford and Chan, 2003; Husted and Michailova, 2002; Michailova and Husted, 2003; Moeller and Svahn, 2004). The barriers resulting from individual behaviour, perceptions and actions, can originate from both the individual itself or groups within or between business functions (Riege, 2005).
Appendix I provides a more complete overview of all the identified knowledge sharing barriers encountered in organisations.
As literature has recognised how especially for larger firms effective communication, both verbal as well as written, is fundamental to effective knowledge sharing (e.g. Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Hendriks, 1999; Meyer, 2002), and how the ability of an employee to share and receive knowledge depends largely on their communication skills, it can be argued that multinational corporations experience heightened complexities in this regard. Their interactions and knowledge sharing practices are namely to cross borders within their own network, thereby often encountering linguistic differences. Differences in language has been acknowledged as a potential cause of knowledge stickiness (Argote & Ingram, 2000), and recognised as an impediment to the ease and effectiveness with which information can flow (Riege, 2005). Theory has therefore recognised the negative impact language barriers can have on intra-organisational knowledge sharing, and the first proposition of this paper therefore follows:
P1. Differences in operational languages is a barrier to intra-organisation knowledge sharing in multinational corporations.
Researchers in the field of international management have highlighted how companies highly underestimate the importance of language, as well as the ramifications of language barriers, on the sharing of knowledge within the MNC network (Feely and Harzing, 2003). This paper will therefore attempt to identify the ramifications language barriers have on the employee and the organisation, and therethrough an organisation’s knowledge sharing processes, in an attempt to justify why language research is of importance for international business scholars and international managers alike.
Q2. What effects do language barriers have on intra-organisational knowledge sharing?
This chapter seeks to create a better understanding of the notion of language barriers and its ramifications on multinational language sharing. These ramifications must be considered abstract, as simple measurement units, such as dollars spent on interpretation, do not suffice (Harzing and Feely, 2008). The language barrier should, however, be of important consideration as it can propel severely negative ramifications, ranging from miscommunication, to harming group dynamics (Harzing and Feely, 2008); which create uncertainty and mistrust (Gudykunst, 1998), and therethrough can lastingly harm international relationships (Feely and Harzing, 2003).
Miscommunication can be caused by a lack of important rhetorical skills, which require high levels of fluency, such as symbolism, humour, and persuasion (Harzing and Feely, 2008). Negotiations without such skills may lead to undervaluation of leadership, charisma and confidence; and can result in the fear of having potential loss of face (Harzing and Feely, 2008) among employees. The concept of loss of face, found applicable to all nationalities (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998), is based on the idea that nobody wants to be perceived as poorly informed or plain stupid, making it more likely for people to act knowingly, albeit not understanding the conversation (Lincoln, Kerbo, and Wittenhagen, 1995).
Language barriers additionally constitute to the existence of group boundaries and catalyse existing polarisation (Harzing and Feely, 2008), causing negative dynamics such as parallel information networks and code switching (Harzing, Köster, and Magner, 2011) to occur. Parallel networks evolve when skilled employees take on gatekeeping positions based on their language capabilities rather than their position of authority (Harzing and Feely,
2008), often in gain of personal rewards. Code-switching describes the use of an unratified second language among few of the attendants in official settings, which can elicit conspiracies (Harzing and Feely, 2008). Language barriers, hence, breed uncertainty and suspicion, accentuate group polarisation (Feely and Harzing, 2003), affect social identity formation (Bordia and Bordia, 2014; Reiche, et al., 2015), increase anxiety, undermine intra-firm trust (Gudykunst, 1998), and foster cultural distances (West and Graham, 2004), eventually leading to overall avoidance of interaction (Harzing and Feely, 2008), which negatively impacts the intra-firm knowledge transfer (Peltokorpi, 2015; Schomaker and Zaheer, 2014). They essentially give limited opportunities for employees to interact internationally and therethrough impede the development of social capital (Kostova and Roth, 2003).
Despite a lack of theoretical evidence, Harzing and Feely (2008) provide several experience-based, speculative suggestions on the impact of language barriers, and suggest that an MNC facing uncertainty and mistrust between its network entities will take steps to reduce complexity at various language interfaces. While language barriers are considered to be part of concepts such as cultural or linguistic distance (West and Graham, 2004), literature fails to provide empirical evidence on beneficial, linguistic management strategies to reduce these barriers. This void is particularly unfortunate for international organisations, due to their complex and heterogeneous nature (Fredriksson, et al., 2006), where linguistic barriers may affect both communication with local partners as well as within their own network (Luo and Shenkar, 2006). Excellent intra-organisational knowledge sharing is considered vital as it allows for the creation of sustainable competencies (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) and innovation creation (von Hippel, 1994; Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1988; Lawson and Lorenz,
1999), and therefore language barriers should be reduced to allow for increased ease of flow of cross-border information.
Harzing and Feely (2007) call for future empirical work to confirm or deny the accuracy of the speculated impacts language barriers have on knowledge transfer. They expect for grounded research in MNCs to potentially reveal new elements related to language barriers, and the importance of each of these elements in varying contexts may be assessed (also called upon by Harzing and Pudelko, 2013). They state how objective knowledge on the actual extend of language diversity in MNCs is considered to be limited and incomplete, providing ground for further explorations. This research therefore puts forward the following proposition:
P2. Language barriers negatively impact intra-organisational knowledge sharing in multinational corporations.
Even though the limited empirical research on the effects of language barriers on intra-firm knowledge sharing complicates the forward putting of managerial solutions, some scholars have attempted to analyse different strategic language system to assess their likelihood in the alleviation of these potential barriers. These managerial choices will be explored next.
Q3. Which strategic measures can multinational organisations take to overcome language barriers?
Strategic language choice arguably requires extensive attention and selection, increased by MNC complexities. Multinational firms tend to encounter difficulties when balancing and justifying the costs of employing a fitting language strategy with its potential outcomes,
however, regarding the earlier noted ramifications language barriers have on intra-firm knowledge sharing, we argue that its value is hardly to be disregarded. Existing literature has attempted to compare several strategic measures, which will be laid out next.
As the nature of an MNC demands for a constant balance between local responsiveness and global integration (Luo and Shenkar, 2006), it can be argued that the adoption of one common corporate language would not suffice. Arguably, one common language would decrease the sourcing of locational advantages, where individuals are to engage and make interpretations within their own cultural and linguistic context (Von Glinow, Shapiro, and Brett, 2004), and where language is considered to serve as a cultural system of signification (Brannen, 2004). Environmental knowledge is pivotal for building firm specific advantages, however, strategic language choice is thought to influence the process by which employees internalise environmental information (Daft and Weick, 1984; Phillips, Lawrence, and Hardy, 2004), which may make one common corporate language infunctional in the sourcing of local knowledge. A common corporate language may additionally feel like an imposement by the headquarter on the subsidiary; enhancing relational asymmetry through power-authority distortions (Harzing and Pudelko, 2013). Especially the employees who lack proficiency in the official corporate language will be limited in conversational abilities, which may lead to isolation or exclusion from critical exchanges of information (Fredriksson et al., 2006). These employees tend to be less involved in decision-making (Louhiala-Salminen, Charles, and Kankaanranta, 2005) and experience a loss of power within the organization (Luo and Shenkar, 2006), enhancing the asymmetry, and decreasing organisation trust. Additionally, research has noted how the introduction of a common corporate language does not automatically render a firm monolingual; language diversity within a global firm is thought to persist beyond the
implemented corporate language strategy (Andersen and Rasmussen, 2004; Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, and Welch, 1999; Sørensen, 2005).
Rather, Luo and Shenkar (2006) suggest a strategic language design of concurrent and recursive integration of subunit languages with a functional language, which is a formally chosen language used for all communication between network units, headquarter communication, official documentation, and events. The functional language will need to be selected thoroughly, to embody the concerns, requests and knowledge of subunits, and may become a prerequisite for staffing of managerial personnel. Luo and Shenkar (2006) additionally mention how establishing a subunit language is geared towards the fulfilment of subunit roles and utilised for efficient and effective intra-subunit communication. It is argued that a constant, concurrent and recursive use of the functional and various subunit languages through a globally coordinated intra-organisational communication network fosters network communication and knowledge sharing (Luo and Shenkar, 2006) whilst enabling the maintenance of local responsiveness.
Other adopted strategic language measuresas proposed by Feely and Harzing (2003) include relying on lingua franca; using external language resources such as translators and interpreters; encourage employee language training; appoint language nodes; use selective recruitment; adopt expatriate management; organise inpatriation; make use of a controlled language; and/or employ machine translation.
Other strategic measures range from centralisation, to general reduction of direct contact between entities through rationalisation (Feely and Harzing, 2003). MNCs may furthermore be likely to adjust strategic decisions based on future expansion and entry mode choice, to avoid impeding such experienced linguistic trauma elsewhere (Harzing and Feely, 2008). A move towards rigid reporting deepens formality and further declines interaction
quality, communication will turn into a debate around formality and prompt concealment of information to avoid such unpleasant discussion of relative trivia (Harzing and Feely, 2008).
In short, an organisation can employ several measures in an attempt to alleviate language barriers and/or propel internal knowledge sharing. A strategic language system - the employment of a purposefully thought-out strategy to manage language within an organisation - is likely to be an effective control mechanism to mitigate barriers and encourage knowledge sharing, however, in many international businesses such language systems are not employed (Harzing and Feely, 2008).Little is known on how these language systems encourage knowledge sharing, and which system most effectively aids in the mitigation of the impact language barriers have on intra-organisational knowledge sharing. This research therefore puts forward the following proposition:
P3. Employing a strategic language system effectively mitigates the negative impact language barriers have on intra-organisational knowledge sharing within a multinational corporation.
This paper aims to contribute to managerial practices, and existing literature, by proposing the following theoretical framework and related propositions to test, suggesting how the implementation and monitoring of a strategic language system can reduce intra-organisational relational asymmetry and therethrough propel MNC knowledge transfer.
2.2 Conceptual Framework
!
Figure 1. Propositions on the Ramifications of Language Barriers on an MNC’s Intra-Organisational Knowledge Sharing.
The propositions derived on the basis of the above presented literature review enabled the creation of the conceptual framework as a representation of the suggested theoretical correlations. In short, it has been proposed that language barriers are one of the barriers hindering intra-organisational knowledge sharing; these language barriers (in)directly ramificate the ease and effectiveness of intra-organisational knowledge sharing, and thereby hinder substantial organisational growth; managing these barriers via a strategic language system may alleviate the negative impacts of multilinguality, and thereby enhance the ease and effectiveness of internal knowledge sharing.
Literature (see e.g. Fredriksson, et al. 2006; Harzing and Feely, 2008) has pleaded for more research within this domain, requesting to explore other elements of language barriers
in MNCs (Harzing and Pudelko, 2013). There have additionally been requests for future research to compare organisations from different linguistic backgrounds (Welch, Welch, and Marschan-Piekkari, 2001). The scope of this paper may not allow for the comparison between organisations (merely between units within the same organisation), but does attempt to expand the existing body of knowledge to allow for easier comparison in future research. This will be done by collecting data at a Dutch multinational, as well as at two of its geographically dispersed subsidiaries, all three embedded in different linguistic environments.
The request for the exploration of other elements justifies taking a qualitative, exploratory methodological approach through semi-structured interviews. The methodology of this research will be explained next.
Chapter 3. Methodology
This chapter will discuss the chosen methodological approach, as employed to reach the set objectives of this research. The research design will be laid out, positioning it in a paradigmatic framework, followed by the presentation of the data collection method and sample group. The chapter will be concluded through a critical methodological evaluation.
3.1 Research Design
Positioning a research study in a paradigmatic framework will help to “reflect upon the
broader epistemological and philosophical consequences of their perspective” (Perren and
Ram, 2004, p. 95). Each paradigm has different strategies, methods, limitations and assumptions, which inevitably affect the way in which the quality of the data is being
understood and assessed. It is important to document the paradigm that you work with (De Vos, Strydom, Fouche, and Delport, 2011), as it helps shape the research and allows for a more reliable replication of the study.
3.1.1 Research Philosophy and Justification
This research aims to uncover the potential ramifications language barriers have on intra-organisational knowledge transfer, as experienced by managers and employees in a multinational corporation. In doing so, it will take an interpretivist approach. Interpretivism entails that the researcher interprets elements of the study and is thereby mostly focused on understanding human behaviour (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Interpretivism is often used in interviews, as the researcher is to pick up on small cues and make sense of responses through social constructions. It is characterised by understanding the world from a subjective point of view, where it tries to put explanations in a frame of references of the participant, rather than the objective observer. Epistemology, the viewpoint of interpretivism, sees our knowledge and understanding of reality as a social construct made by human actors (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). The value of how the data is understood is dependent on the degree to which it fits and works with the perspectives of the participants (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
The aim of this research is to further explore previous work on language barriers in the context of intra-organisational knowledge transfer. Existing research has proposed a variety of potential ramifications language barriers have, and subsequently potential strategic solutions to alleviate these ramifications, yet has argued for the uncovering of additional, relevant insights. This justifies taking an interpretive, inductive approach.
A risk of interpretivism can be that research results are subjective to the researcher’s interpretation of the social construct s/he observes. In this particular research this risk has been minimized through member checking; where the transcript, coding scheme and a summarized version of the data has been sent to the participant for him/her to confirm. Therethrough, a higher level of research credibility has been obtained.
3.1.2 Research Approach and Justification
This research will take an inductive approach, moving from observations to the construction of generalisations and theories. Extensive, raw data will be condensed into a summarised format, aiding the exploration of links between these findings and the research objectives. The results of this exploration will serve as the foundation for the development of a framework (Thomas, 2006).
No specific theories or propositions should be deliberately prompted during the interview as this may obstruct the discovery of new constructs. This research aimed to approach the interviews with a clean slate and not propose existing theories upon interviewees. Yet as Eisenhardt (1989) states, it is impossible for researchers to start with a clean theoretical slate, as it is “impossible to embark upon research without some idea of
what one is looking for” (Wolcott, 1994, p. 157). The structure of the interview guide was set
to reduce the risk of probing specific answers by keeping the questions broad and free of preconceptions in the start whilst moving towards more focused questions later in the interview. After the interviews had been conducted, the data has been compared to existing theories to discover similarities, differences, and new patterns.
3.1.3 Research Strategy and Justification
The aim of a qualitative research strategy is to lead to the understanding of rich, contextual, and generally unstructured, textual data (Mason, 2002), through conversations with research participants in a natural setting (Creswell, 2009). A qualitative research strategy allows for a more in-depth understanding of data than quantitative research could achieve, and enables the researcher to follow up on questions, or ask for clarifications, which may lead to key insights. As social aspects will have to be taken into account, it can be argued that quantitative approaches would not have been able to capture the whole story (Crotty, 1998) nor allow for the exploration of potentially new barriers or managerial solutions.
In this research setting, a mono-method qualitative strategy is to complement the body of data available on the ramifications of language barriers on intra-organisational knowledge transfer. The study will additionally explore the attitudes and experiences on strategic language systems as an alleviating mediator of these barriers. Qualitative research allows for a rich examination of the organisational context in which the knowledge sharing takes place. Additionally, qualitative research with a specific focus, such as language barriers, helps to design better quantitative studies (Wang and Noe, 2010), it is, however, important to keep in mind that interviews do not automatically guarantee the collection of rich data and do not guarantee to produce meaningful insights per se (Schulze and Avital, 2011).
In order to assure quality of the data, quantitative research addresses validity and reliability. Qualitative researchers often prefer to use alternative terminology to better reflect the different nature of their research. Confirmability (objectivity), credibility (validity), dependability (reliability), confirmability (objectivity), and transferability (generalisability) are used to establish the trustworthiness of qualitative research (Bloomberg and Volpe, 2008).
Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose a variety of methods to assure quality in qualitative research. This research has aimed for transferability through thick descriptions. Credibility has been sought through member checking during and after the interview, where the interviewer asks the participant to verify what the interview has heard or perceived and whether this correlates with what s/he meant to answer. This will be done during the interview by concluding answers and thereby seeking confirmation from the interviewee, as well as after the interview by allowing the participant to respond to the coded constructs. Lastly, confirmability has been aspired through an audit trail, which is a transparent description of the research steps.
3.1.4 Research Purpose
The main purpose of this study is to gather new information through exploratory research, on the ramifications of language barriers on intra-organisational knowledge sharing. The exploratory nature of this research allows for semi-structured interviews, which will be conducted with a total of nine managers and employees of three subsidiaries of a high-tech, Dutch multinational, located in geographically dispersed and linguistically diverse areas. Conducting a semi-structured interview allowed the researcher to guide the interviewees within the boundaries of the relevant topics whilst allowing for freedom of expression, hereby aiming to obtain rich, in-depth, and contextual data on the, as per person experienced, ramifications of language barriers, and the potential strategic measures which can be taken to alleviate these ramifications.
3.2 Operationalism of Concepts
Operationalisation is considered to be the process through which (abstract) concepts are translated into measurable variables. These concepts are often based on existing theories, and even though the exploratory nature of this research should try not to impose earlier defined concepts, theory will be used as a guideline to probe more in-depth responses, and to increase the validity of the collected data on language barriers and language strategies. The following main concepts will be measured through a semi-structured interview:
3.2.1 Knowledge-sharing
Priorly we have defined intra-organisation knowledge sharing to be ‘the timely and efficient
diffusion of the (external-network) learning among members of the network’ (Cho and Lee,
2004, p. 1). Information, as processed by individuals, can include ideas, expertise, facts and judgements which are deemed to be of relevance for individual, team, and organisational performance (e.g., Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). Information can foster collaboration with others in order to solve particular problems, develop new ideas, and/ or to implement new policies and procedures (Cummings, 2004), and often occurs through written, digital, and face-to-face correspondence.
In this paper, the words knowledge and information may be used interchangeably, as previous research has stated how a distinction between the two has no particular utility in knowledge-sharing research (see Bartol and Srivastava, 2002; Huber, 1991; Makhija and Ganesh, 1997). Questions regarding knowledge sharing will include “what does
communication within the organisation look like to you?” and “ are you encouraged to share information with your colleagues (abroad)?”. Knowledge sharing entails both the transfer of
3.2.2 Language barriers
Language barriers will be measured in terms of how it distorts and damages relationships (Feely and Harzing, 2002), measured as perceived by the interviewees experience. These barriers are in turn to heighten the pressures and constraints on organisational knowledge sharing. The ramifications these language differences have on the perceived ease of information sharing within the organisation will be measured through questions such as
“what do you experience to be positive consequences of communicating in your own language within the organisation?” and “what do you experience to be negative consequences of communicating in another language(s) within the organisation?”.
3.2.3 Strategic Language System
In this paper, we define a strategic language system to be a purposefully selected language strategy aimed at alleviating organisational language barriers and/or encouraging intra-organisational knowledge sharing. These include, for example, the adoption of a common corporate language or the use of a lingua franca. This paper aims to explore new strategic language systems, and sets out to measure the perceived usefulness of a strategic language system in general through questions such as “how would you like to see linguistic differences
being managed within the organisation (if managed at all)?” and “how do you think this strategy will help you share more knowledge?”.
These concepts have been translated into interview questions and placed orderly in the interview guide. The interview guide has been face validated by supervisor Dr. Mashiho Mihalache, and the supervisor of the company at which the data has been collected. A
test-interview has been conducted with two acquaintances - working for multinational corporations - prior to the official start of the data collecting process. The length of the interview was timed, as well as whether or not terminology was understood and the answers were in line with the intention of the asked questions. Feedback arising from this interview has subsequently been processed; four questions were rephrased as they turned out to yield repetitive answers (final version of the interview guide, appendix II).
3.3 Performed Research Activities
3.3.1 Sampling Methods and Respondents
When selecting appropriate respondents for the exploratory research, the preference is to choose cases that are information-rich with regards to the topic. Purposive sampling for this research is therefore justified (Patton, 2002).
Due to the timeframe of this research nine interviews took place. Even though this relatively small number of interviewees is unlikely to represent the entire population, it is intended to explore underlying insights which can later serve as a body of data to create quantitative studies and propose business recommendations.
Data has been collected at a Dutch, high-tech multinational, which highly integrates intra-organisation global teams across diverse linguistic areas of their network. Collecting data at this organisation has additionally been chosen due to sampling convenience through acquinstancy. Interviews took place either in real-life, via Skype, or via phone call, with individuals employing different hierarchical functions in the organisation.
Even though existing texts on knowledge management explicitly or implicitly state how a manager’s most important job is the assistance of the creation, maintenance, and dispersion of knowledge (Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney. 1999; Hansen and Von Oetinger,
2001), phenomena such as knowledge sharing are not thought to reside in one level of analysis, but rather is to be considered hierarchical. Interviews have therefore taken place with three project managers, three team leaders, and three team members, of three geographically dispersed operational enterprises of the network, embedded in three different language environments. Collecting data across varying levels is needed to capture the complexities brought about by knowledge transfer dynamics (Klein and Kozlowski, 2000).
3.4 Critical Methodological Evaluation
A methodological evaluation allows for research results to be placed in a frame of potential biases, as understanding these allows for a realistic portrayment of the final results and recommendations without disregarding potential external, unaccounted influences.
Potential biases to which this research may, or has been, subjected will be presented below, as well as actions undertaken to minimise these biases either prior to, or during the data collection. Some biases will inevitably be present, the researcher needs to be aware of how this affects the research results and the interpretation of these results.
3.4.1 On Methods and Sampling
The sample group, consisting of nine employees of a high-tech multinational, were chosen for participation by the multinational itself. Selection criteria regarding these employees is unknown to the researcher, apart from the specific request for three team members, three team leaders, and three project managers, operating in three linguistically diverse countries. Selection by the organisation may have been based on scarcity in function, schedulability of employees, and/or rich in content and experiences with working in global teams. Needless to
say, a multinational selecting their own employees for interviews may lead to a selection
bias.
Interviewing employees from one organisation improves the relevance of the research results for this organisation, and organisations alike in the industry, it does however eliminate the uncovering of potential barriers which may have been more prominent for other industries, for example as creative industries arguably rely less on a commonly educated jargon like high-tech companies tend to do. Interviewees were made aware of the independence of the research, and encouraged to share experiences from previous jobs and/or thinking in the broader context of barriers to knowledge sharing, however, inevitably most interviewees related their answers to their current job role in their current organisation. This means that saturation of the topic is arguably not reached as the sample represents merely a small dataset from a specific industry. This selection bias means that potential (language) barriers in knowledge sharing are likely to have remained uncovered, despite the interview guide having been designed to encourage general answers. A selection bias does not have to be a problem by definition, as long as the researcher is aware that the results most likely not fit the entire population, and acknowledges that perceived barriers have remained uncovered. Another limitation to the sampling process is that it is likely that the participants who agreed to be interviewed already enjoy stronger communication skills, or in the least do not shy away from sharing information with others (in a non-native language). Barriers such as ‘poor communication skills’ and/or ‘introversion’ are therefore less likely to have been uncovered during the interviews.
3.4.2 On the Data Collecting Process
A commonly known phenomena occurring during interviews is interviewer bias, especially relevant in behavioural sciences. The presence of a researcher (e.g. his/her looks, body language and/or tone of voice) can influence a participant's answers. This is nearly impossible to avoid, as these influenceable acts often occur subconsciously. However, if an interviewer is aware of this bias prior to the research, s/he can try to purposefully avoid or minimize some cues. During the data collection of this paper this has for example been purposively avoided by minimizing the nodding when ‘approving’ of an answer.
Another critical evaluation regarding the data collection process relates to how research has recognised how the language in which data is obtained may affect the answers that are given (Feely, 2006). All interviews in this research were conducted in English, despite this not being the mother tongue of any of the interviewees. Certain information may therefore not have been shared with the researcher, for example due to difficulties with the language, or as certain linguistic complexities are not one-on-one translatable (hence, the topic of this research). This may mean that potential barriers remain uncovered due to language barriers in the data collection process, and/or answers may have been subjected to milder nuances than if the interview were to have been conducted in the native language.
Another measurement bias which may have occurred, is termed as socially desirable answers. Socially desirable answers occur when a respondent answers in correspondence with what they think is socially acceptable to say. Interviewees may have been milder in their responses regarding experienced knowledge sharing barriers, as the interviews were conducted at their own organisation, in, what they may feel, assignment of their boss. This may lead to more favourable answers regarding the work of their organisation, as a complete sense of safety in answering may have been jeopardised. This may have led to the
transfiguring or omitting of relevant data by interviewees, which needs to be taken into account when analysing the findings. The researcher tried to minimise this bias by stating the independence of the research prior to the interview and emphasising the anonymity of the responses.
3.4.3 Credibility of Research Findings
The prominent risk and potential limitation of qualitative research is that the subjectivity of the researcher can unintentionally influence the research results. To increase credibility of research results, the transcript, coding scheme and a conclusion were sent to the participants for member check-up. A risk of member check-ups is that participants may have had time to think about their answers or may simply not like what they answered once reflecting upon it. It is therefore recommended to send the summary as soon as possible after the interview. Member check-ups are often a time consuming process, and a risk may be that the participant is not academically schooled and therefore has no knowledge on what s/he is actually agreeing to. To make the document more comprehensive for the participant, a conclusion with relevant research results was constructed. Even though conducting check-ups is a lengthy process, it increases the credibility of the research findings and makes it less subjective to the interpretation of the researcher. Inevitably, some researcher subjectivity is always present, as the coding scheme has been constructed by the researcher and themes have been linked to quotations based on the researcher’s understanding and knowledge. Other researchers may have linked the same quotes to other (likely similar) concepts, which may have inevitably altered the final conceptual model.
In the following chapter, the data analysis process will be presented, where the thematic coding analysis will be explained and the derived concepts will be compared to existing theory to either confirm, dispute, or expand upon earlier frameworks.
Chapter 4. Analysis of Research Results
To briefly summarise the prior chapters; language diversity has been recognised as a barrier to the efficient and effective knowledge sharing in an MNCs intra-organisational network. Despite its evident importance, literature on language in business and knowledge sharing management is deemed scarce and incomplete. Scholars have therefore pleaded for more exploration regarding the matter, as well as for the proposition of theoretically supported managerial solutions. This research therefore takes an exploratory, qualitative methodological approach, through semi-structured interviews; moving from observations to the construction of a theoretical framework for the ramifications of language barriers on intra-organisational knowledge sharing. The sample population has been retrieved from a high-tech, Dutch multinational. Nine employees, of which three project managers, three team leaders, and three team members, of three geographically and linguistically dispersed units have been interviewed, following the semi-structured interview guide as to be found in appendix II. These interviews have subsequently been manually transcribed (all available upon request), providing a descriptive account of the dataset, however not providing explanations. The researcher made sense of the data by exploring and interpreting the findings in order to produce a valid and reliable theoretical framework. The fashion in which the data has been analysed will be discussed next.
