The Multinational as the
Tower of Babel
Communicating through the
Language Barrier
The Multinational as the Tower of Babel
Communicating Through the Language Barrier
AUTHOR N.Meerman SUBJECT OF RESEARCH Corporate Express Unilever University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business International Business and Management
UNIVERSITY SUPERVISORS Prof. Dr. L. Karsten
Dr. B.J.W. Pennink
Groningen, May 2008
© 2008 N.Meerman
Dearest creature in creation Studying English pronunciation, I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse. I will keep you, Susy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy; Tear in eye, your dress you'll tear;
Queer, fair seer, hear my prayer. Pray, console your loving poet, Make my coat look new, dear, sew it! Just compare heart, hear and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word. Sword and sward, retain and Britain
(Mind the latter how it's written). Made has not the sound of bade, Say-said, pay-paid, laid but plaid.
Now I surely will not plague you With such words as vague and ague,
But be careful how you speak, Say: gush, bush, steak, streak, break, bleak,
Previous, precious, fuchsia, via, Recipe, pipe, studding-sail, choir;
Woven, oven, how and low, Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe.
Say, expecting fraud and trickery: Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore, Branch, ranch, measles, topsails, aisles,
Missiles, similes, reviles. 1
PREFACE
Most of us know the Biblical story of the tower of Babel2, where descendants of Noah tried to build a tower to reach heaven. However this attempt failed because God punished them with giving everybody a different language. Communication became impossible and the Tower of Babel has never been completed. Within multinationals those different languages come together again and they challenge themselves to overcome the language differences and communication problems to accomplish a joint goal.
In the past year I learned more than in any other period in my life, not only about the language barrier in multinationals, or about doing research, but mostly, and mainly about myself. Making choices has always been a stumbling block for me, but writing this thesis, and having to make all decisions concerning this research by myself has taught me a lot.
I want to thank a lot of people for the fruitful combination of challenging me and believing in me. I want to express special gratitude to the respondents who participated in the research. The completion of this thesis was made possible through the support and cooperation of many individuals. Thanks to my advisors from the university, Prof.Dr. Luchien Karsten and Dr. Bartjan Pennink, and S. Le-Camus from Unilever and C.Thrush from Corporate Express, who provided guidance and encouragement through what seemed to be a never-ending process. I am also very thankful to my father, Eddy Meerman, who read my thesis several times to help me with my own language barrier. I would also like to thank all the others who provided support in completing this study.
The following thesis is the result of a monologue about my ideas of how the language barrier has an influence in large multinationals, such as Unilever and Corporate Express. My aspiration is to start a dialogue with companies and theorists concerning this topic, and how companies can leap in on overcoming certain issues and especially the underestimation of the language barrier.
Nynke Meerman
Groningen, March 2008
MANAGAMENT SUMMARY
This study explores the influence of the language barrier on multinational corporations. This management summary will give an overview of the content of this thesis, it provides an indication of the research and its result.
Goal
To provide insights and understanding of the complexity of the language barrier subject within MNEs.
Research Question
“How do multiple languages in a team affect the performance of a multinational at the level of headquarter-subsidiary relationships and on the level of inter-team relationships?”
Methodology
To answer the research question stated above, research has been conducted at two large MNEs, namely Unilever and Corporate Express. Grounded Theory is the core methodology used in this thesis. After a theoretical orientation interviews have been conducted at Unilever. The data received from this stage was analyzed and categorized. The results from Unilever have been presented at Corporate Express. The original data from Unilever and the modifications received from Corporate Express have been combined in two models: a multinational model and a team model.
Results
Two separate models have been drawn: a model which shows how the language barrier influences the relation between the headquarters and subsidiaries of a multinational and another model which shows how the language barrier influences international teams. For the multinational the umbrella-factor ‘control’ covered how the language barrier should be dealt within the multinational. For the team model the umbrella-factor has been determined as ‘behavior’. On the next two pages the models are shown with a short description.
The multinational model
more feedback. Because both companies are situated in different countries and have different working languages all conversations and documentations have to be translated. Especially this translation is very expensive, both in money and time. Through their involvement in the recruitment process multinationals can lower the language barrier in the company. It will be an advantage for the multination when employees are capable of working in the company language as well as in the subsidiary language. Hence multinationals should manage the recruitment process and focus on both knowledge competence and language skills, especially for the employees who have to work in an international environment. Time consuming Expensive Intermediating factor: MNE Strategy: Centralization Decentralization Multinational Headquarters Language 1 Multinational Subsidiaries Language 2 Recruitment - Knowledge competence - Language skills Feedback Coordination Translation
The team model
Also having a conversation with English native speakers was perceived more difficult by non-native speakers than having a conversation with another non-native speaker. Miscommunication in a team can result in irritation both on the speaker and listener side, or in shame and uncertainty often for the less fluent person. This has a negative influence on the participation of team members and consequently also on the team performance.
Team Size Team Experience Team Management Results in Positive influence Caused by - Interpretation - Accents - Medium type - Ambiguity - Vocabulary dissimilarity
- English native speakers perceived more difficult than second language vs second language speakers
- Comfortable feeling - Confidence in expressing opinions Member background
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ... 10 1.1 MOTIVATION... 10 1.2 RESPONSIBLE... 10 1.3 THESIS OUTLINE... 10 2. RESEARCH SET-UP ... 12 2.1 INTRODUCTION... 12 2.2 PROBLEM INDICATION... 12 2.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT... 14
2.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH... 15
2.5 METHODOLOGY... 15 2.6 CONCEPTUAL MODEL... 17 2.7 RESEARCH OBJECTS... 17 2.8 DATA GATHERING... 18 2.9 CONCLUSION... 19 3. THEORETICAL ORIENTATION ... 20 3.1 INTRODUCTION... 20
3.2 COMMUNICATIONS IN GLOBAL TEAMS... 21
3.3 LANGUAGE... 22
3.3.1 Phonetics, phonology, morphology and syntax... 23
3.3.2 Semantics... 24 3.3.3 Pragmatics... 25 3.3.4 Sociolinguistics ... 25 3.3.5 Anthropological linguistics... 26 3.4 DISCOURSE... 26 3.5 COMMUNICATIONS... 27 3.6 LANGUAGE CONSEQUENCES... 28 3.7 POLITE LANGUAGE... 30 3.8 GENDER DIFFERENCES... 30
3.9 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HEADQUARTER AND SUBSIDIARIES... 32
3.10 CATEGORIES... 34
3.11 CONCLUSION... 35
4. INTERVIEWS AND LABELLING... 36
4.1 INTRODUCTION... 36 4.2 INTERVIEW... 36 4.3 RESPONDENTS... 37 4.3.1 Unilever... 38 4.3.2 Corporate Express ... 38 4.4 RESULTS... 39
5. DATA ANALYSIS UNILEVER ... 40
5.1 INTRODUCTION... 40
5.2 MAIN CONCEPTUAL MODELS... 41
5.2.1 Conceptual model language in teams... 41
6. CONFRONTATION PHASE WITH CORPORATE EXPRESS... 63
6.1 INTRODUCTION... 63
6.2 DATA FROM CORPORATE EXPRESS... 64
6.5 CONCLUSION... 66
7. THEORIZATION... 67
7.1 INTRODUCTION... 67
7.2 CENTRAL CATEGORY... 68
7.3 TOWARDS THEORIZATION: HOW THE LANGUAGE BARRIER INFLUENCES THE MNES... 70
7.3.1 The Multinational Model... 70
7.3.2 The Multinational Team Model... 72
7.4 CONCLUSION... 74
8. CONCLUSION ... 75
8.1 INTRODUCTION... 75
8.2 OVERALL REPRESENTATION AND RECOMMENDATION... 75
8.3 LIMITATIONS... 78
REFERENCES ... 80
APPENDIXES... 86
I POEM BERNARD M.BARUCH... 87
II LIST OF DEFINITIONS... 91
III INTERVIEW QUESTIONS... 93
IV LABELS... 95
V QUESTIONNAIRE THEORETICAL SAMPLING... 97
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation
To finish my bachelor degree I wrote my bachelor thesis on the subject of language diversity in transnational teams. During the creation of my bachelor thesis I detected that there was not much literature on language in business. This in contradiction to my expectations: there are plenty of articles concerning subjects like the internationalization of companies; globalization; the influence of different cultures, et cetera. However, hardly any research concerns the influence of language in companies, and in specific in MNEs. According to Feely and Harzing (2007) there has not been done much research on the language barrier topic because management researchers and linguist always have been discouraged by the cross-disciplinary nature of the subject. However because of the preliminary exploration of the language diversity subject in business has raised my curiosity and the cross-disciplinarily has not frightened me, a master thesis subject was born.
1.2 Responsible
The project has been undertaken on behalf of Unilever and Corporate Express, both large multinationals with subsidiaries in multiple countries. These two companies fit the research matter perfectly and were willing to cooperate to this research by providing a sufficient amount of respondents and the ability to conduct interviews.
For Unilever and Corporate Express a better understanding of how language influenced their company and the international teams in their company was the reason to have this research performed. The findings will be used to evaluate current team dynamics at both companies.
1.3 Thesis Outline
D E F I N I T I O N S O F T E R M S
Within this part you can find all relevant definitions mentioned in the chapter. When the definitions are mentioned in this box, the definitions will not be repeated again in the text. All definitions can also be found in appendix II.
METHODOLOGY
A similar set-up will be used for the methodology. In the following chapter an overall approach concerning the methodology will be explained. However, also in each chapter a short methodology intersection, such as this, will be shown. This intersection applies on the following text and explains the methodology used in that part of the chapter or paragraph.
The content of the following chapters are explained below.
Conclusion Theorization
CONTENT
CHAPTER
Problem indication and set-up of the research Theoretical Orientation
Discussion of the interviews and respondents and a presentation of the discovered labels
Presentation of the conceptual model of Unilever and the division of labels into categories
Confrontation of the conceptual model of Unilever with Corporate Express
2.
RESEARCH SET-UP
D E F I N I T I O N S O F T E R M
Methodology: A way of thinking about and studying social reality (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:3) Methods: A set of procedures and techniques for gathering and analyzing data (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998:3)
Research problem: The general or substantive area of focus for the research (Strauss & Corbin,
1998)
Research question: The specific query to be addressed by this research that sets the parameters
of the project and suggests the methods to be used for data gathering and analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter the goal and set-up of this research can be found. First a thorough description of the problem indication will be given, this is provided in chapter 2.2. Thereafter in 2.3 the goal and the research question will be stated. In paragraph 2.4 the aim of this study will be discussed. In the subsequent paragraph, paragraph 2.5, the methodology used throughout this study will be explained. Subsequently the conceptual model is stated and explained. Paragraph 2.7 will deal with the research objects: Unilever and Corporate Express, this in order to get a more thorough understanding of the two multinationals which are investigated in this study. Paragraph 2.8 will deal with the data gathering. The final paragraph will give an overall conclusion and short summary of everything which is discussed previously.
2.2 Problem Indication
John et al. (1997) state that as many as three out of four multinational enterprises (MNE) now manage networks of twenty or more overseas operations. The management of multinational subsidiaries has gradually emerged as a distinct field of research from within the fields of international and strategic management. Lars Otterbeck (1981) was one of the earliest authors who tried to define the field with the publication ‘The Management of Headquarters-Subsidiary Relationships in Multinational Corporations’. His edited collection focused on headquarter-subsidiary relationships, including articles by authors such as a Prahalad and Doz.
Figure 2.1 Major Languages of the World (Wikipedia )
network (Triandis, 1982; Adler, 1983; Herbert, 1984; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985; Hofstede, 2001; Brannen, 2004). The coordination burden of managing such geographically, culturally and linguistically diverse networks is overwhelming. Nevertheless, many MNEs urged on by the twin goals of the transnational model, local responsiveness allied to strong global direction, have accepted the challenge and have sought to strengthen their global coordination. However, whereas it is easy to understand that coordination is a key source of competitive advantage, it is equally undeniable that such coordination makes global communication capability a prerequisite for success. In this context Spinks and Wells (1997) state that “Physical distance makes
effective communication necessary and cultural distance makes effective global communication essential”. To be able to communicate effectively companies have invested heavily in the tools
of modern communication devices, such as global intranets, video conferencing, e-mail networks, global integration of IT systems and workflow technologies. These implemented devices have all contributed to making information flows faster, easier and more secure, however interpretation difficulties remain since language is a serious barrier.
Consequently natural languages have received very little attention in organization and management studies. However, natural languages are the basic means of communication in organizations, the basis for
knowledge creation, and signifiers and symbols of ethnic and national culture and identity. It is estimated that the number of different language communities range from 3000 to 7000 or more. The following list includes all languages spoken natively by groups of
more than 100 million people: North Chinese vernacular (Mandarin), English, Spanish, Arabic, Hindi or Urdu, Portuguese, Bengali or Bangla, Russian, French, Japanese, German, and Malay or Bahasa Indonesia. About 120 languages have more than a million speakers, and around 60% of the world's languages have 10.000 or fewer speakers (Wikipedia).
According to Tihanyi et al. (2005) cultural distance between headquarters and subsidiaries is an important determinant of organizational actions and performance. In this regard it can be concluded that coordination of language diversity between headquarter and subsidiaries is essential in the light of coordination problems of the transnational strategy. 2.3 Problem Statement
METHODOLOGY
Strauss and Corbin (1998) state that the way in which one asks the research question is essential since it determines, to a large extent, the research methods that are used to answer it. To be able to develop theory, the main purpose of Grounded Theory, “it is necessary to frame a research
question in a manner that will provide the flexibility and freedom to explore a phenomenon in depth”(Strauss and Corbin, 1998:40).
Goal
To provide insights and understanding of the complexity of the language barrier subject within MNEs.
To provide insight and understanding of the complexity of the language barrier issue within MNEs this research identifies factors influencing the language barrier within MNEs. The investigation of possible instruments to deal with the language barrier is also part of the exploration. It is suspected that these instruments will be more applicable to certain function groups – for example general management, marketing and human resource management- within multinationals than others such as financial and logistical function groups. 3
This goal should be obtained by answering the following research question.
Research Question
“How do multiple languages in a team affect the performance of a multinational at the level of headquarter-subsidiary relationships and on the level of inter-team relationships?”
3 The financial and logistical function groups have a universal working language with predetermined terms, general
Characteristics of a Grounded theorist
1. The ability to step back and critically analyze situations
2. The ability to recognize the tendency toward bias 3. The ability to think abstractly
4. The ability to be flexible and open to helpful criticism
5. Sensitivity to the words and actions of respondents 6. A sense of absorption and devotion to the work
process (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:7) 2.4 Research Objective and significance of the research
The aim of this study is to fill in gaps from past international business research. More precisely, it is investigated what influence the language barrier has on multinationals, both on company and team level. I have found only one article4 which specifically focuses on the language barrier and how this influences the relationship between headquarters and subsidiaries; however this article is only based on theoretical argumentation and lacks empirical evidence. In addition this article is mainly written from a strategic point of view, and not from a human perspective. The practical relevance of this study is that managers gain insight into the influences of language on team communication and in turn coordination. Communication is significant to MNE managers because it is seen as an important source of competitive advantage. In the area of multinational management, language tends to be given, even though there has been an increasing emphasis on communication processes and network development within multinational companies, as a critical means of ensuring control and coordination of dispersed activities (Bartlett and Goshal, 1989; Forsgren, 1990; Hedlund, 1986). Ultimately, poor communication across languages could be the stumbling block in a multinational’s quest for global integration (Marschan, Welch and Welch, 1997). Therefore, it is important that research is conducted and will provide empirical evidence in this area of research.
2.5 Methodology
Because an in-depth understanding of human behaviour and explanations what govern human behaviour is needed, a qualitative research method has been chosen. Qualitative research means that
“the research findings are not arrived at by statistical procedures or other means of
quantification” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:11). Quantitative research mainly focuses on the
what, where and when of decision making, and qualitative research investigates more the why and the how of decision making. Especially the latter is important in this study.
The research that has been conducted is based on the grounded theory. Grounded theory is especially useful in this research as it “can be used to obtain the intricate details about
phenomena such as feelings, thought processes, and emotions that are difficult to extract or
4 “The Language Barrier and its Implications for HQ-Subsidiary Relationships” written by A.Harzing, and
learn about through more conventional research methods” (Strauss &Corbin, 1998:11).
Because of the former argument qualitative research has been chosen instead of quantitative, since qualitative research gives more space for in-depth analysis and the investigation of human thought about the research topic. Within grounded theory a researcher begins with “an area of
study and allows the theory to emerge from data” (Strauss &Corbin, 1998:12), “theory is derived from data, systematically gathered and analyzed through the research process” (Strauss
&Corbin, 1998:12). The research process, of data sampling, data analysis, and theory development, has to be repeated until the phenomenon that is to be researched can be described and explained. When no new data appears, and the emerging theory is not changed anymore then the research process is finished.
Because not every research within grounded theory uses the same approach, only the used approach for this research will be elaborated on.
Theoretical
Orientation Interview phase
Categorization Unilever Confrontation with Corporate Express Theorization
2.6 Conceptual Model
International teams
Subsidiaries HeadquartersMNEs
Language Barrier
Figure 2.2 Initial conceptual model
Usually conceptual models provide relations between concepts as a starting point. In the above model, an initial idea that the language barrier influences the relation between headquarters and subsidiary is shown. However this model does not yet show how the language barrier influences this relation.
The language barrier will most probably influence the relation between headquarters and its subsidiaries. How this will occur may be found in the structure of the headquarters but also in the kind of people that work in both the headquarters and subsidiaries. This influence of the language barrier will most probably not only apply to the multinational level but will also influence the international teams within the multinational. The above conceptual model is my first impression of the way I think there is an influence of language on the MNE, existing of headquarters, subsidiaries, and international teams.
2.7 Research Objects
Unilever is a large multinational company with two headquarters, one in the Netherlands and one in England. Unilever was founded on January 1, 1930. The company has subsidiaries in more than 100 countries and has more than 400 brands. They deliver a wide range of products, from home and food products to personal care products. The company’s mission is to “add vitality to life”.
The other research object is also a large multinational, namely Corporate Express. Corporate Express is a company specialized in products and services for the office and printing markets, and is currently playing a leading role in their market. Corporate Express is present in 20 countries, with more than 300 locations in those countries. Currently, their markets spans North America, Europe and Australia, however they are also establishing subsidiaries in the Asian market at the moment.
Both companies, having to deal with the language barrier daily, were willing to cooperate with the research performed. Since both companies are working in such an international environment - not only having to work with several nationalities during subsidiary-headquarters meetings, but also having multiple teams with a divers set of languages present - makes them perfect research objects for the purpose of this research. Because both companies have a large amount of employees who do their job in multiple languages, often their own language and in English, there was an ample amount of respondents to get a data set which was large enough to draw well-grounded conclusions.
2.8 Data gathering
belong to the labelling of the data also other, more specific, information concerning the interviews and the respondents are discussed in chapter four.
Strauss and Corbin (1998) argue that sufficient data are collected when the overall image or evolved theory does not change anymore when new data is collected. Therefore, no more data is needed when the concepts which emerge from the data collection at Unilever can be left unchanged after testing them at Corporate Express.
In grounded theory, the existing theory which is used in this research is a tool in constructing new theory. Together with existing theory, the results of the data collection at Unilever and Corporate Express, a new theory will be the outcome of this research.
2.9 Conclusion
This chapter focused on the set-up of this research. Main elements of this set-up are the:
Goal: To provide insights and understanding of the complexity of the language barrier issue within MNEs.
Research question: How do multiple languages in a team affect the performance of a multinational at the level of headquarter-subsidiary relationships and on the level of inter-team relationship?
Practical relevance: That managers gain insight into the influences of language on team communication and in turn on team coordination.
Methodology: The research will be done according the Grounded Theory approach.
Data Gathering Both desk and field research. The field research mainly consists of interviewing. This is further discussed in chapter four.
The following chapter will show an evolvement of the conceptual model shown above. First a conceptual model from the reviewed literature will be given; hence the conceptual model will develop when new data and new insights are obtained.
3.
THEORETICAL ORIENTATION
Theoretical
Orientation Interview phase
Categorization Unilever Confrontation with Corporate Express Theorization D E F I N I T I O N S O F T E R M
Categories Concepts that stand for phenomena (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:101)
Language: “the communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary
signals such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols”
“a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words” “a systems as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2007)
Rhetoric The art of speaking or writing effectively (Webster’s definition)
3.1 Introduction
As has been indicated in the previous chapter, the perspective taken is very broad. This perspective needs to be specified further to be able to ask sensible questions during the interviews. Since the topic covers two very broad research fields, namely linguistics and business, general theory of both areas related to the topic are discussed below. The previous is followed by a theoretical overview of factors related to the influence of language on the relationships between MNEs and subsidiaries, a list of categories is the result. This list will be used during the next phase of the study: the interviews. The end list of categories can be used to have a handle during the conversations.
METHODOLOGY
Strauss and Corbin (1998) state about the use of literature that it is important that literature should be used to “enhance, rather than constrain, theory development”, for the reason that
“familiarity with relevant literature can enhance sensitivity to subtle nuances in data, just as it can block creativity”. For this reason before the interview phase began, only basic literature
theoretical articles have to be investigated after the data-analysis to provide a source for making comparisons to data, and see whether the concepts emerged from data are similar or opposite to the ones recalled from literature. For presentation and clarification reasons no differentiation has been made between theory obtained before and after the data-analysis, however as mentioned before the list of categories has been created before the interview phase started, as it was a starting point for the interviews.
3.2 Communications in global teams
Prior research on MNEs has highlighted communication, control and trust as critical dimensions of the relations between local senior managers and headquarters’ management (Bartlett & Goshal, 1989; Birkinshaw, 1997; Doz & Prahalad, 1981; Luo, 2003;
Nobel & Birkinshaw, 1998). The significance of communication in teams has had considerable attention in research in the past thirty years, Donnellon (1996) states that teamwork is essentially a
linguistic phenomenon. However communication relies upon a shared language, something which is not always present in international business. It has been acknowledged in past research that team diversity can lead to enhanced performance if sufficient communication mechanisms are established (Anderson, 1983; Fiedler, 1966; Hirakawa, 1980; Walsh et al, 1988, Larkey, 1996). Multinationals work with global and divers teams to leverage the knowledge and skills of diverse team members (Lagerstorm and Anderson, 2003), past research suggested that diversity in membership increased the number of solutions offered and alternatives considered (Hoffman, 1965; Hackman and Morris, 1975; Rigby, 1987). Besides, if the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is correct and language affects the way one thinks, it is plausible that having a multilingual team may improve performance in decision-making by increasing the variety of alternatives.
The communication between team members of global teams may be face-to-face, fax-to-fax, over the phone or through the internet. Interpretation of communication is complicated by the fact that people develop distinctive conversational styles, largely from the cultures, national and corporate in which they live. (Donnellon, 1996)
As also mentioned before, mixed nationalities can bring richer and more appropriate solutions; however the influence of different cultures makes the interpersonal interaction more complicated than within teams of one nationality (Davison, 1994). When teams with different
“Language is the source of misunderstandings”
nationalities have creative tasks, communication could be a potential problem. In these tasks, communications and a great deal of nuance in language is necessary (Schweiger et al., 2003). Obviously the more common languages there are amongst the team, the easier it is to explain details and check understanding (Davison, 1994), however in the majority of cases the common language used by the global teams will not be the native tongue of all the team members. The situations can be even more extreme when there is not even a common language and team members need to rely on translation. Marschan et al. (1997) cited in their article one case when a Spanish manager ignored information received from the headquarter in Finland because he could not read it and argued that such documents should be translated into Spanish. Feely and Harzing (2003) argue that the costs of the former presented problems can not be measured simply by the amount of dollars spent on translators but should also be measured in terms of damaged relationships and the constraints placed on the companies’ strategies. The previous is also acknowledged by Hymer (1979) and Kostova and Zaheer (1999) who state that language diversity within MNEs increases the cost of transactions, from scanning host country information to exchange information with stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, competitors and regulators.
3.3 Language
Language is the basis of communication, or as Edward Sapir (1933) states is the gift of speech and a well ordered language characteristics of every known group of human beings. According to the American Heritage (2007) language is “the communication of thoughts and feelings
through a system of arbitrary signals such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols” and
language is “a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words”, and finally it is “a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted
with dialect”. Because language is an aspect of culture, individual languages may categorize
objects and ideas in completely different ways. As mentioned before it is estimated that the number of different language communities range from 3000 to 7000 or more.
Within the research of language, several research streams can be indicated, namely: phonetics; phonology; morphology; syntax; sociolinguistics; semantics; pragmatics; and anthropological linguistics.
concerns the organization of sounds in a language, as well as the combination of sounds to form words and the interaction of speech sounds. According to the American Heritage Dictionary (2007) is phonology “the study of speech sounds in language or a language with reference to their distribution and patterning and to tacit rules governing pronunciation”. The third area, morphology, is connected to the study of the structure and form of words in language or a language, including inflection, derivation, and the formation of compounds. In common words morphology deals with how words are put together from their smaller parts and rules governing this process. Syntax, then, is the study of the rules for combining words or other elements of sentence structure to form grammatical sentences. This area attempts to describe the grammatical rules within a language.
The research areas mentioned above can be divided into two distinct research streams, the four described above relate to the structure and grammatical issues when investigating a language. The second stream, which will be described below, examines the meaning and use of language in the context of society and culture. The first area, sociolinguistics, studies the interrelationships between language and social and cultural factors. Semantics is concerned with describing how we represent the meaning of a word in our mind and how we use this representation in constructing sentences. The third area, pragmatics, is closely related to the first area, however pragmatics concerns the use of language. The final area, anthropological linguistics, deals with the interaction between language and culture.
3.3.1 Phonetics, phonology, morphology and syntax
“If we spoke a different language, we would perceive a somewhat different world”
(Ludwig Wittgenstein)
listeners unfamiliar with the accent. Team members who are not confident concerning their ability to speak in the foreign language may also be reluctant to speak in meetings conducted in the foreign language (House, 2002; Hymes, 1972). However the previous problems, which are common to learners of any foreign language, can usually be solved by a good language training program.
3.3.2 Semantics
According to dr. Saussure (1983), one of the most influential theorists in semantics, the meaning of a word can not be found in the words themselves, or in their specific context but in their relation to other words. The significance for global teams is that different languages have different conceptual schemes or word associations. Chen et al. (2006) state that team members from diverse linguistical backgrounds will have different
understandings and associations with a word, and they also acknowledge that even when the team is speaking a common language, team members may still carry associations from
their native language. According to Strauss (1969) language forms a part of a wider cultural system for communication. Sapir (1958) and Whorf (1956) go even beyond this and argue that not only do languages reflect different cultural systems but that the structure of different languages influences thought. According to Whorf people are only able to think about objects, processes and conditions that have language associated with them, linguistic determinism, and that different cultures perceive the world in different ways. 5 The previous could be an explanation for the difficulties global teams experience in aligning thought processes.
Consequently exact translation is not possible according to the previous authors, since a word in one language does not always match the equivalent in another language because of differences in perceptions. Another specialist on translation - W.V.Quine (1968) – states that one word can be pronounced in different ways and can also have different meanings. “Language is a social
art which we all acquire on the evidence solely of other people’s overt behavior under publicly recognizable circumstances (…)Meaning is not a psychic existence; it is primarily a property of behavior” (Quine, 1968). Our reference frame determines the translation we give to a word. In
5 This may explain why speakers from some languages appear muddle-headed to speakers of other languages. It
In Western countries it is customary on entering a host’s house to a make a compliment on the furnishing, yet in certain Eastern cultures such statements might be taken as a hint that you would like that item as a gift.
this regard different nationalities will give different meanings to the same word because of differences in reference frames. There will always remain a barrier during communication between people from different nationalities.
3.3.3 Pragmatics
Pragmatics recognizes that information transfer always takes place within a social context and that the actual formulation of a message depends on the social, situational and conversational context. Here the problem of miscommunication arises when the speaker assumes that the listener does not need elaboration and the listener interprets the statement wrongly because he lacks a vital piece of information.
Sometimes speakers also use ambiguous or illogical statements in order to convey some other meaning, for example the answer of “Pigs might fly” to the question “Will the report be ready by five o’clock?”. The
problem here is that listeners who are not familiar with such tactics may misinterpret the message ( Chen et al., 2006). Chen et al. furthermore state that team members from cultures that commonly make use of indirect statements may read more into statements than speakers from cultures that make less use of indirect statements while team members from cultures that make less use of indirect statements may miss meanings that were intended by speakers from cultures that make more use of indirect statements.
Hymes developed a valuable model to assist the identification and labeling of components of linguistic interaction that was driven by his view that, in order to speak a language correctly, one needs not only to learn its vocabulary and grammar, but also the context in which words are used.
3.3.4 Sociolinguistics
This framework classifies cultures according to their power distance; individualism; masculinity; and uncertainty avoidance. It can be applied to see how these dimensions affect the way language is used.
Language does not only reflect social context, it may also influence social interactions within teams (Chen et al., 2006). Therefore it is not uncommon to find within a global team that when all team members communicate in a common language, the native speakers of one language will tend to form closer relationships with each other.
3.3.5 Anthropological linguistics
This area is closely related to the area of sociolinguistics, anthropological linguistics examines how language use is different across cultures and societies. Gao (1998), for instance, identified five major speaking practices which distinguishes Chinese speakers from Western speakers, namely: implicit communication; listening-centeredness; politeness; a focus on insiders; and face-directed communication strategies. Because of the former, Chinese speakers are often perceived as shy, indirect and reserved. These misperceptions can create communication problems when Chinese speakers communicate to other nationalities. The previous, is closely related to the non-verbal communication, something which should not be forgotten in global teams, since also the non-verbal communication will be influenced by cultural differences. According to Maznevski and Chudoba (2000) the previous is especially relevant in virtual teams, where communications is not face-to face. Also Sproull and Kiesler (1986) note the lack of context signs in e-mail communications, therefore the use of e-mail for some type of communications may not be considered appropriate in certain cultures. In the relation to the previous, Lee (2002) found that the use of e-mail varies among eastern and western cultures, some cultures have an aversion to e-mail because of lack of non-verbal cues, or the opposite, that some cultures prefer e-mail because gives them the opportunity to check the meaning of the message without having to respond immediately.
3.4 Discourse
Then, how does this relate to discourse? The definitions given by The American Heritage Dictionary is “verbal expression”; “verbal exchange or conversation”; and “the process of
power of reasoning”. In the social sciences, a discourse is believed to be an institutionalized
Discourses are regarded to affect our views on all things; it is not possible to escape discourse, or, as J. Butler puts it, “the limits of acceptable speech- or possible truth”. In other words, the selected discourse delivers the vocabulary, expressions and possibly also the style needed to communicate.
Then it can be questioned how language and discourse are related topics and in what manner they differ. Figure 3.1 shows how language, text, context are all different dimensions of discourse.
Figure 3.1 Elements of discourse (Chimombo and Roseberry)
The above is related to rhetoric, the art of speaking or writing effectively. According to Aristotle, rhetoric is the ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion. According to him there are three main forms of rhetoric namely: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. Ethos is appeal based on the character of the speaker, speakers try to persuade by establishing their credibility, gaining the confidence of the audience. Logos is appeal based on logic or reason, persuasion takes place because of what is said is based on facts or credible arguments. Pathos is appeal based on emotion. Organizational control depends on the sentiment of fear anxiety, joy, shame and embarrassment( Strati, 1998). A speaker can influence the emotions of a listener using the techniques of ethos, logos and pathos.
3.5 Communications
Communication flows within the MNE are an essential element of its ability to control and coordinate global activities, and to respond rapidly and flexibly to changing circumstances. Anderson & Narus (1990:44) state that communication is “the formal as well as informal
sharing of meaningful and timely information”. Communication is essential for the maintenance
of social relationships and meaningful social exchange (Blau, 1964). Lorenz (1988) even states that when communication between parties is of high-quality it will allow sharing of information
about values, goals and norms and enables both parties to learn about each other’s idiosyncrasies and develop mutual understanding. In line with the former, research has found that high-quality communication generates positive outcomes in social relationships, between individuals as well as between organizations (Atuahene-Gima & Li, 2002; Young-Ybarra & Wiersema, 1999). However, coordinating those communication flows within a MNE is not an easy task, since there are formal and informal channels; the information follows multiple directions (that is, top-down, bottom-up, horizontal and diagonal); and is, which is also mentioned before, transmitted via a myriad of forms (such as oral, electronic, written, etc.).
In language and culture studies, the view of culture has been first and foremost a cognitive one, that culture is knowledge, a system of information that is in speakers’ heads, at least in large part (B.G.Blount, 1995). It also has been acknowledged that language is a fundamental part of culture, and also that the study of language is a particularly important and revealing way to access culture and even thought itself. The previous is embedded in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which states that the habitual use of language influences the way its speakers view the world. Franz Boas, one of the first researchers towards studies on language, culture and society, already acknowledged in 1911 that language is one of the most important manifestations of mental life.
3.6 Language consequences
Henderson (2005) states, that potential negative consequences of language diversity fall into two categories, the visible, or a lack of language competence and the
invisible ones linked to a lack of socio-linguistic or communication competence. However, one consequence should be added, namely the use of language as a political weapon.
Employees of MNEs should speak the national language but also be capable of communicating on the global firm level. In this manner, team members can contribute to the MNE local responsiveness and global integration. One of the absurd expectations commonly attached to second-language learning is that people somehow expect that the level of proficiency attained in a foreign language should ultimately equal first-language proficiency. In reality all learners should be delighted if they ever approximate the highly respectable level known in language learning jargon as near-native proficiency. (Butterman, 2007:13)
The adoption of a common company language, or language standardization, has many advantages from a management perspective:
“Language exerts hidden power, like the moon on the tides” (Rita
1. It facilitates formal reporting between units in the various foreign locations, thus minimizing the potential for miscommunication and allowing for ease of access to company documents such as technical and product manuals; policy and procedure documents; and information systems.
2. It enhances informal communication and information flow between team members.
3. It assists in fostering a sense of belonging to a global ‘family’, which has been suggested as an important element in the multinational’s use of soft control mechanisms such as corporate culture (Ferner et al., 1995).
4. It focuses the management of language problems (Feely and Harzing, 2003).
Demanding that only one language is spoken can also exclude people (Davison, 1994). The easiest way to manage the language problem is to hire people already possessing the required skills (Lester, 1994) but this is maybe not the best solution. Since it is as important to focus on knowledge competence as on language skills. Moreover, there is considerable evidence to show that the right level and mix of language skills is not always available in the market (Hagen, 1999). Within legal and political limits, senior executives seek the best man, regardless of nationality, to solve the company’s problems anywhere in the world (Perlmutter, 2001). This is resulting in more diverse teams.
explained above, language diversity is likely to result in a lower level of trust in the relationship between management and transnational project teams.
3.7 Polite language
According to Morand (2003) one of the most troublesome aspects of communication in global teams is the use of polite language. Morand discusses in his article the interaction order, this refers to the fact that social gatherings tend to be organized, actors sharing a situation generate rules of communication. Those rules determine how individuals are in meetings, and Morand claims those interaction orders differ across cultures. According to him one must understand
“how culture differ relative to the patterning of face-to-face discourse, the actual behaviors, gestures, and nuances of expression exchanged by individuals as they interact”(Morand,
2003:522). He draws upon politeness theory, which focuses on “how verbal expressions embed
ritual attitudes of approach and avoidance toward the personality of others”
(Morand,2003:522). Goffman (1967), who created politeness theory, claims in his article that each person is concerned, to some degree, with how others perceive him or her, and for this reason people attempt to maintain face. However politeness takes the opposite view, were individuals strive to uphold and preserve the face of those with whom they interact. Scollon and Scollon (1995) even argue that since we are dependent on maintaining our own face on the action of others, likewise are others dependent on us, everyone tries to preserve face as much as possible. In Japanese and Chinese societies, face saving is considered extremely important (Pan, 2000), for this reason they might use polite language more frequently than others. Instead of saying “You are wrong”, alternatively one might say “Well, I’m not quite sure that I see things the same way you do”. A previous article of Morand (1996), explains that polite language in organizations shows the relative power of the speaker and listener. Donnellon (1996) claims that team conversations creates team dynamics and that “the language that team members use
as they work together has consequences”. For instance, using titles as Director, Dr. and
Professor are common in some languages, such as Dutch and German, however those titles can sounds stiff in an English speaking team, and in consequence can influence behavior of team members towards each other.
3.8 Gender differences
On average women hear me twice as loud (2.3 times more loud) as men. So, they hear me shouting (and they think I’m angry) while men have the feeling I’m speaking in a confidential manner, with some kind of complicity. (Ginger, 2003)
report style, aiming to communicate factual information, whereas women have a rapport style,
more concerned with building and maintaining relationships.
Gender also affects the use of polite language (Holmes, 1995; Tannen, 1994; Coates, 1998), because men and women are socialized in different ways they also have different standardsfor speaking. Tannen (1994) states that men's conversation is message orientated, based upon communicating information. For women, conversation is much more important for building relationships and strengthening social links. The previous would imply that in a global team there may be women with a culturally different determent role for women. It is important that global teams take such differences into account.
This can also be related to Searle’s speech act theory (1969). Searle distinguishes three different language components:
- “Locutionary forces”, what are the words that are spoken.
- “Perlocutionary forces”, what is the effect of the speaker on the listener by saying those words.
- “Illocutionary forces”, what indicates that the listener should understand what the intention is of the speaker when he uses those words.
Female and male speakers use particular locutionary and illocutionary acts (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003). Female speakers use more polite language, more compliments, and apologies illocutionary acts, while male speakers use
insults and one-ups more. Also the perlocutionary forces are different between sexes: Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003) state that “women are often disempowered by
being constrained to use ‘powerless’ language, ways of
speaking that simply are not very effective in getting others to think or do what the speakers wants them to”.
which emotions their story evokes with the listener, Baron-Cohen (2003) states that the female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy. Male speakers on the other hand focus more on the logos; they are more message focused, as also Tannen acknowledged. Male respondents are also conscious of the fact that when they deliver a message in a certain manner that this can evoke several emotional reactions, in fact the emotional part of the brain - the right brain - is more developed among men than women. However male speakers use the pathos approach more to acquire more influence or respect. According to Tannen men are generally interested in establishing their autonomy and independence from others. They are focusing more on individual aims and accomplishments. Female respondents are more focused on whether their message has a negative influence on the listener such as irritation and angriness (Renkema, 1994). Coates (1996) suggests that women work to constitute an egalitarian social world, one where horizontal ties predominate.
Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003) argue that “although it is clear that many men want
considerable intimacy and many women considerable authority, it is clear that many women and men think that these stereotypes represent some kind of norm that they probably ought to fit”.
3.9 Relationships between headquarter and subsidiaries
There has been considerable research towards the influence of language in multinational corporations (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000; Maclean, 2006; Marschan et al., 1997; Marschan-Piekkari, 1999). However, related to this master thesis project the most relevant research done, is conducted by Harzing and Feely. The authors have conducted considerable research on the influence of the language barrier, and specifically on the influence of the language barrier on the relationships between headquarters and subsidiaries. In contradiction to this study, the research by Harzing and Feely is only theoretically based. The model from the article ‘The Language Barrier and its Implications for HQ-Subsidiary Relationships’ is used here to structure the interviews and assign the categories. Figure 3.2, which shows the model of Harzing and Feely (2007), assembles the language barrier components into a single conceptual model based on the idea of a vicious circle. The article of Harzing and Feely will be shortly discussed because of the theoretical relevance for this study. The categories identified by the authors in their conceptual model are partly used as a basis for the interviews conducted at Unilever.
group’s capabilities. Attitudes are likely to harden and inter-group relationships suffer as group identities polarize and misattribution of motives and actions is the result. Stated by the authors does “the risk of affective conflict intensifies as factors such as code switching, power-authority
distortions and parallel information networks compound the sense of suspicion and friction”
which will be dysfunctional for the relationship. The former will probably increase the separation between the parent company and the subsidiary, this will result in more formal communication. In a response to this the parent company will make strategic decisions to avoid replicating the same problems elsewhere, for example concerning future market extensions. The parent company is then likely to take organizational steps aimed at simplifying the language difficulties by replacing national managers with expatriates or other personnel with parent language skills. Besides key functions may be taken under direct parent company control, the founding of complex, multi-lingual supply chains is likely to be postponed as being too risky at this time. Harzing and Feely (2007) state that if uncertainty is present and communication is a problem, the typical measures adopted are centralization of key decision making and the imposition of rigid output reporting, covering not only finance but also other areas such as manufacturing, purchases, stock and service level.
Communication cycle Management cycle Uncertainty, anxiety and mistrust Failure to communicate effective Misattribution, conflict and cognitive distortion
More formality, less effective communication
Organisation and personnel selection
Strategic decision
making Global integration strategies
Autonomy and control procedures
3.10 Categories
After giving an elaborate overview of the literature, both in the linguistic as in the business research field, some important topics seem to be of specific relevance to the research question. After discussing the literature, a diagram is made which can be presented towards the respondents, in order to give the respondents an overall idea of the topic. The diagram presented in figure 3.3 is the starting point for the next phase of the study, the interview phase. Respondents can be satisfied by providing them with a list of conceptual areas that will be investigated; initial interview questions can be derived from this diagram (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:51). Since all interviews took place by phone, the diagram presented in figure 3.3 was e-mailed to all the respondents beforehand.
3.11 Conclusion
In the previous chapter a conceptual model is shown which was based on initial ideas on the language barrier topic. In this chapter those initial ideas were further deepened. The previous paragraphs show that the language barrier influences a multinational in a number of ways. The following eight factors were identified as topics that should be raised during interviews.
Language Diversity Communication technology Team dynamics (Mis) Communication Emotional Responses Management Multinational Gender Sender origin
4. INTERVIEWS AND LABELLING
Theoretical
Orientation Interview phase
Categorization Unilever Confrontation with Corporate Express Theorization D E F I N I T I O N S O F T E R M
Label Code for a concept or phenomenon (Strauss and Corbin, 1998)
Microanalysis: The detailed line-by-line analysis necessary at the beginning of a study to
generate initial categories (with their properties and dimensions) and to suggest relationships among categories; a combination of open and axial coding.
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998)
Open interview: An open interview is an interview which cannot be answered with just ‘yes’ and
‘no’.
4.1 Introduction
The previous chapter a list of categories was developed to guide the interviews. This list has been sent to all the respondents before the interview took place. In this chapter the respondents, as well as other general information on the interviews are discussed, the chapter will end with a list of identified labels. In this chapter only the identification of those labels is discussed, in the following chapter these identified labels will be divided into categories and a conceptual model of this analysis will be presented. First a detailed description of the respondents of Unilever and Corporate Express will follow. After that the labels which were identified during the microanalysis of the data received from the interviews will be presented.
4.2 Interview
All interviews were held by phone. If additional or more clarifying information was needed, the questions were sent by e-mail, if this was not sufficient or the questions were too elaborate, additional telephone conversations were held. All respondents received an e-mail, containing a short description of the topic and the purpose of the interview, also the model containing the categories was sent along. If respondents insisted on knowing what kind of questions to expect the list of questions described in appendix III was also sent. All interviews have been conducted in English. The previous implied that persons from a non English speaking country needed to answer all interview questions in their second language. Since I was also asking the questions in my second language, those conversations became non-native English speaker versus non native English speaker. The interviews with native English speakers became a native English speaker versus a non-native English speaker interview. Strauss and Corbin (1998:286) state that “in a
general sense, qualitative analysts face precisely the same difficulties when trying to comprehend the meaning of acts, events, or objects when these are profoundly ‘cultural’ in nature”. However it should be monitored whether culturally biased statements are not
misinterpreted. Since I asked for opinions instead of facts I eliminated a large part of the culture bias.
The duration of the interviews varied from 40 minutes up to one hour and a half. Some interviews were held in multiple sessions, since some of the interviews were interrupted because of work-related matters of the respondents. As mentioned before, all interviews were recorded with a digital sound recorder except when I was asked not to record the conversation. When the respondent did not want the interview to be recorded, notes were taken during the interviews.
4.3 Respondents
The respondents that were interviewed in the first stage of the research all worked at Unilever. In the second stage of the research, the confrontation stage with the first model, all respondents worked at Corporate Express.
4.3.1 Unilever
At Unilever more than 30 interviews were conducted, however two interviews were not usable in the data analyses part and are not shown in the appendix either. Those interviews were not usable because of an off-topic conversation and unwillingnessto discuss the topic researched in this thesis. Eventually 28 interviews were used for the data analyses, 12 female respondents including one native English speaker, 16 male respondents of whom five were native English speakers. The respondents worked in subsidiaries all over the world6, all were active in regional or global teams, so all respondents worked on a regular basis in their second language. For most respondents this was English; however some respondents also used three or more languages during their work at Unilever. Especially in parts of Africa French is used, and in most parts of South America, Spanish is used as the main language. All respondents were senior managers in different positions in the company. As mentioned before all worked in teams with an international character, 18 of the 30 respondents were active in one global team and 12 of the respondents were active in another global team. However, between those two teams there was also an overlap, some respondents were active in both teams. On the whole the respondents were active in five teams, some were active in both a global team and a regional team, and some were active in two regional teams, depending on the country of origin and working knowledge the respondent possessed.
4.3.2 Corporate Express
At Corporate Express nine interviews were conducted. Three of those interviews were conducted during the same period as the interviews of Unilever. For this reason those interviews were not suitable for the confrontation phase. This since there was no actual confrontation and the questions asked were similar to those at Unilever. The remaining interviews were held after the complete data analysis of Unilever. The questions asked can be found in appendix III. The respondents of Corporate Express were all active in an international team. Unlike Unilever, the respondents did not come from all over the world, but were all European citizens. One of the respondents was a native English speaker, all other respondents spoke in a second language during their work at Corporate Express. All respondents are male, similar to the respondents of Unilever, the respondents of Corporate Express were all senior managers.
4.4 Results
METHODOLOGY
After having done all the interviews, the interviews were typed out. Also comments were placed next to the interviews, how the respondent’s level of English proficiency was experienced by me. After having all interviews on paper, the most important and moreover most relevant sentences were selected, to perform analysis. As also Strauss and Corbin propose, a detailed analysis of the words or phrases has been conducted, by scanning the documents, and then returning to focus on a word or phrase that stroke me as being significant and analytically interesting. In this manner, every sentence selected for each respondent, was given one, or sometimes multiple, labels. Sometimes sentences were given different labels at first, however after doing the analysis for the second time; sentences which had comparable meanings were given similar labels. This manner was chosen since the amount of labels grew too much to process into an ordered framework, and later on divide into categories.
“At the beginning of my journey, I was naive. I didn’t know yet that the answers vanish as one continuous to travel, that there is only further complexity, that there are still more interrelationships and more questions”
(Kaplan, 1996, pp. 7)
5. DATA ANALYSIS UNILEVER
Theoretical
Orientation Interview phase
Categorization Unilever Confrontation with Corporate Express Theorization D E F I N I T I O N S O F T E R M S
Categories Concepts that stand for phenomena (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:101)
Subcategories Concepts that pertain to a category, giving it further clarification and
specification (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:101)
5.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter a list of labels was presented which were identified by the respondents in the interviews. In this chapter, the labels received from the interviews at Unilever, are divided into categories and explained. In the following paragraph the categories are discussed and the relationships between the different categories and labels are presented.
The next paragraph will start presenting two overall conceptual models of the found categories and relationships and underlying explanation, one concerning international teams and one concerning the multinational. These conceptual models will give a preliminary overview of the complete picture of data received from Unilever. In the subsequent sub-paragraphs for every category a small conceptual model is presented to visualize the explained data.
The following paragraphs contain ideas and quotes from interview round one at Unilever. I have strived to comment as little as possible myself. The quotation marks and references in the text refer to comments of respondents7.
7 This chapter contains a large amount of references. Most of the references are coded. Those codes refer to
5.2 Main conceptual models
In this paragraph the final conceptual models drawn from the data from Unilever are shown. To give an overall overview of the data received from Unilever first the conceptual model covering the complete data concerning the influence of the language barrier in the teams is shown. In the subsequent sub-paragraph the overall model presenting the influence of language in the multinational is shown.
5.2.1 Conceptual model language in teams
The figure below, figure 5.1, shows the conceptual model concerning the influence of the language barrier in teams at Unilever.
Language Barrier Miscommunication Caused by: - Interpretation - Accents - Medium type - Member background - Vocabulary dissimilarity
caused by: culture, gender and educational background
- English native speakers perceived more difficult then second language vs second language
Results in: - Shame - Uncertainty - Irritation Meeting participation Effective Communication Necessary conditions: - Respect - Trust - Established relationship Helpful conditions: - Comfortable feeling
- Confidence in expressing opinions
Results in Negative influence Positive influence Team Performance
Figure 5.1 Conceptual Model “The influence of the language barrier in teams”
5.2.2 Multinational Company
MNE Language 1 Subsidiaries Language 2 Communication Communication Recruitment - Knowledge competence - Language skills Feedback coordination Translation
Figure 5.2 Conceptual model Multinationals
Coordination and Feedback
Multinational companies need to coordinate their subsidiaries, if a parent company is confronted with communication difficulties in their interaction with one of the subsidiaries this can cause loss of control and company cohesion. One of the respondents said that “Because we are going
to a stronger relationship with the HQ we need to communicate more in English.” (4.2). A more
centralized MNE will need more communication than a decentralized MNE where decisions are mostly taken by the management of the subsidiary (25.2). The amount of communication in English depends on the fact whether or not the headquarters makes decisions which need to be implemented in the subsidiary or if decisions are taken jointly (16.3). Another respondent stated that “Every presentation or every work is done in English because you know that before or after
you have to share that with the HQ or with some other colleague” (3.4).
Translation / flow of information
