ChapterPDF Available

The Multifaceted Role of Language in International Business: Unpacking the Forms, Functions and Features of a Critical Challenge to MNC Theory and Performance

Authors:

Abstract

Language lies at the heart of international business (IB) activities. It is a necessary constituent of ongoing sequences of decisions and resource commitments that characterize day-to-day organizational life. Such decision making draws on extensive discussion and debate that is framed, formulated and articulated in language developed and, to a certain extent, shared by corporate, functional and other in-group users. As firms internationalize and enter new markets, whether as “born globals” or more traditionally, they must navigate across countless language boundaries including national languages. Operating internationally means having to interact with transcontinental intermediaries, distinct government agencies and foreign institutions, which reside in different language environments. Yet language as a key construct in the field of IB has not been sufficiently articulated or theorized to reflect the particularity of the field. Forms of language such as national, corporate, technical or electronic, its functions in terms of defining hierarchies, exercising power or facilitating integration, as well as its features such as the use of mixed syntax or gender-marking are emerging as critical phenomena for global business.
EDITORIAL
The multifaceted role of language in
international business: Unpacking the forms,
functions and features of a critical challenge
to MNC theory and performance
Mary Yoko Brannen
1
,
Rebecca Piekkari
2
and
Susanne Tietze
3
1
Centre for Asia-Pacific Initiatives, Gustavson
School of Business, University of Victoria, BC,
Canada;
2
School of Business, Aalto University,
Helsinki, Finland;
3
Keele University, Staffordshire,
UK
Correspondence:
Mary Y. Brannen
Centre for Asia-Pacic Initiatives,
The University of Victoria, Sedgewick,
C128, Canada.
Tel: +33 (0)160 724181;
Fax: +33 (0)160 745500/01;
email: maryyoko@uvic.ca
Received: 7 March 2014
Accepted: 28 March 2014
Abstract
Language lies at the heart of international business (IB) activities, yet language as
a key construct in the field of IB has not been sufficiently articulated or theorized.
Language presents itself in forms such as national, corporate, technical or
electronic, in functions in terms of defining hierarchies, exercising power or
facilitating integration and in features such as the use of mixed syntax or gender-
marking. Understanding the complex interplay between the multiple facets of
language and how they affect day-to-day operations is becoming increasingly
critical to global business effectiveness. The purpose of this special issue is,
therefore, to catalyze and set a course for the development of a new domain in IB
scholarship originating from an explicit focus on language.
Journal of International Business Studies (2014) 45, 495507. doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.24
Keywords: language (language design, silent language, translation); global business;
lingua franca; language strategy; knowledge transfer
Language lies at the heart of international business (IB) activities. It
is a necessary constituent of ongoing sequences of decisions and
resource commitments that characterize day-to-day organizational
life. Such decision making draws on extensive discussion and debate
that is framed, formulated and articulated in language developed
and, to a certain extent, shared by corporate, functional and other
in-group users. As rms internationalize and enter new markets,
whether as born globalsor more traditionally, they must navigate
across countless language boundaries including national languages.
Operating internationally means having to interact with trans-
continental intermediaries, distinct government agencies and for-
eign institutions, which reside in different language environments.
Yet language as a key construct in the eld of IB has not been
sufciently articulated or theorized to reect the particularity of the
eld. Forms of language such as national, corporate, technical or
electronic, its functions in terms of dening hierarchies, exercising
power or facilitating integration, as well as its features such as the
use of mixed syntax or gender-marking are emerging as critical
phenomena for global business.
Journal of International Business Studies (2014) 45, 495507
©
2014 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506
www.jibs.net
The purpose of this special issue is, therefore, to
catalyze and set a course for the development of
a new domain that originates from an explicit
focus on language and languages. We believe that
the eld of IB is now sufciently mature to become
more sophisticated in its understanding of the
multifaceted role of language in todays global busi-
ness realities. This domain may draw on elds such
as anthropology, communication, linguistics and
social psychology to explore the nature and com-
plexities of language in contexts where IB is played
out. Such research would thereby go beyond the
etic, culturally neutral, outsider view of language
to the generation of deep, contextual, emic under-
standings of language in IB which represent a locally
grounded perspective (cf. Pike, 1967).
Whereas the IB eld has long recognized the
importance of language barriers in rm internatio-
nalization and in conducting empirical research, the
interplay between languages in the daily activities
of international management remains opaque and
poses a critical challenge to IB theory and practice
(Welch, Welch, & Piekkari, 2005). Corporate lan-
guage is built over time around domain-specic
usages of words, acronyms and stories that often
reect the industry context and the national lan-
guage environment in the country of origin
(Brannen & Doz, 2012). While such specialized
language is usually clear to insiders, it is not to
outsiders who lack the shared experience of the
former. Moreover, speakers attach invisible mean-
ings to the information exchanged in English as
they draw on the language systems and interpretive
frames of their respective mother tongues (Kassis
Henderson, 2005). This makes it difcult to achieve
purposeful communication and signicantly com-
plicates knowledge transfer across distance and dif-
ferentiated contexts. In semiotic terms, transferring
the linguistic signals alone across borders does not
ensure that the meaning is transferred as intended
(Brannen, 2004). Shifts in meaning occur frequently
in international encounters as the linguistic codes
sent through electronic media are subject to sense-
making in dispersed cultural contexts.
The widespread use of English as lingua franca in
most international organizations has further exacer-
bated the language conundrum. It gives an illusion
that by controlling for national language diversity
the transfer of meaning becomes relatively unpro-
blematic. Lingua franca was originally conceived as
a neutral form of communication without cultural
or political bias. There have also been other lingua
franca before English that served to integrate the
discourses of distinct domains such as French in
diplomacy, German in medicine and Latin in scho-
larship. However, English, as the ofcial language
of several of the worlds leading economies includ-
ing ve members of the G-20 and the medium
through which MBA programs globally are taught,
is far from neutral. Its status adds another layer of
complexity and calls for sensitivity when attempting
to uncover hegemony, ideology and manipulation
of meaning in multilingual situations (Archibugi,
2005; Tietze, 2004, 2008).
It is important to note that the very discipline of
IB has grown out of articulation and dialog predom-
inantly in the English language. At the systemic
level, the institutional machine of academia in
general (international conferences, teaching at the
major business schools worldwide and so on) as
well as publishing (the elds major journals, text
books, practitioner publications) functions in Eng-
lish. Tietze and Dick (2013) take a critical look at the
lack of reexivity in regard to the use of English in
IB and international management scholarship.
They note that from the perspective of the indivi-
dual researcher, having English as a second or
third language is mostly seen and felt as a handicap,
something to be overcome, rather than as a potential
resource. In fact, one motivation for writing this
introduction is that we as guest editors share the
early childhood developmental experiences of grow-
ing up bilingual in non-English-speaking environ-
ments and believe it is important to note that such
backgrounds provide the opportunity for reection.
Experiencing mixed formative linguistic back-
grounds, as many people do these days, draws atten-
tion, immediately and unavoidably, to foreignness
and difference, both of which trigger reection
about points of reference, the relativity of meanings
and comparability. In this regard, our own biogra-
phies inuence the choice of topic for this special
issue and inform the conceptualization of organiza-
tions as multilingual realities.
In this introduction, in order to help set the course
of a new domain, we rst dene languageas a
multifaceted, multilevel construct for IB research.
Here we draw on the contributions made by lan-
guage-sensitive researchers within as well as outside
of the eld of IB. We then trace the development
of the emergent language stream of research in IB
and also integrate highlights from articles in this
special issue. In doing so, we underscore theoretical
advancements, synthesize the key issues facing the
eld in terms of understanding the multinational
corporation (MNC) as a multilingual meeting
Multifaceted role of language in international business Mary Yoko Brannen et al
496
Journal of International Business Studies
ground and provide the beginnings of a protocol for
conducting language research in IB. We should note,
however, that our aim is not to offer an exhaustive
coverage of the literature, but rather a more selective
review that emphasizes the developments we judge
to be most relevant and important. We conclude
with an overview of the articles that have arisen out
of our call for papers for the special issue.
DEFINING LANGUAGE AS A MULTIFACETED
AND MULTILEVEL CONSTRUCT FOR IB
RESEARCH
Disciplines dene language in their own distinctive
ways. For example, in linguistic anthropology lan-
guage is considered a cultural resourcethat (re)
produces the social world (Duranti, 1997; see also
SanAntonio, 1987). Within organization studies,
language is generally dened as a communicative
system of shared meanings that is central in con-
structing organizational, social and global realities
(Astley & Zammuto, 1992; Daft & Wiginton, 1979).
This echoes speech act theorist Austins (1962) view
that language has performative power, and thus
using language becomes equivalent to acting in
the world. Communication researchers also
appreciate language as a constitutive force of orga-
nizing (Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen, & Clark, 2011),
but they focus primarily on the role of discourse,
frames and narratives in sense-making and sense-
giving rather than on multiple and different
languages per se (see, Logemann, 2013, for an
exception).
Likewise, IB scholars share an interest in the
performative aspects of language(s) and its role in
constituting, enabling and, in some cases, debilitat-
ing MNC networks. Embracing different conceptual
trajectories to inform their work, IB scholars take
diverse approaches to language, reecting its multi-
faceted and multilevel nature. Some have begun
to engage with the notion of MNC executives using
the English language both to create and put into
motion hegemonic language strategies (Vaara,
Tienari, Piekkari, & Säntti, 2005). Researchers have
also observed the co-existence of English alongside
a multitude of other languages in the MNC where
their relative order is linguascapedin an on-going
process of negotiation (Steyaert, Ostendorp, &
Gaibrois, 2011). Others have seen the potential
of English as a more neutral communicative tool
available for global business (Louhiala-Salminen,
Charles, & Kankaanranta, 2005).
The notion of the common corporate language is
a particularly fruitful point of departure in IB as it
consists of elements from both specialized and
national language the two facets of language
that frequently come up against each other in global
business (Fredriksson, Barner-Rasmussen, & Piekkari,
2006). Corporate language is at once an organiza-
tional artifact of how thoughts are formulated as
well as how they are communicated and discussed. It
becomes important in regards to eliciting employee
and investor commitment around strategic initia-
tives. Carefully word-smithed statements of strategic
intent and corporate values in annual reports, inter-
nal organizational documents and plasticized
pocket-sized value-statement cards are just a few
indicators of this. In addition, more and more
companies have begun to put in place implicit
language guidelines for virtual communication
including email, texting, webex and video conferen-
cing in order to avoid misinterpretations. Thus, the
language used by decision makers both shapes and
bounds what the rm focuses on and how it articu-
lates its strategic options (Brannen & Doz, 2012). In
this special issue, Kuznetsov and Kuznetsova con-
tribute further to this line of research, focusing on
the nexus of ties between national language, corpo-
rate language (which they term professional dis-
course) and the English language. Their decade-
spanning study shows that a lack of specialized
language constitutes a linguistic hazardin the con-
text of transformational, post-communist economies
which should be included in risk assessment of the
MNC.
The analysis of language-in-context has produced
typologies of idioms used in the MNC that reect the
inner workings of this organizational form. While
Luo and Shenkar (2006) distinguish between parent
and subsidiary functional languages, Marschan-
Piekkari, Welch, and Welch (1999a) refer to parent
country, subsidiary and common corporate lan-
guages as mentioned above. Moreover, an internal
hierarchy of languages has been identied which
orders and separates the privileged home country
language and the ofcial corporate language from
other less prestigious languages employed in the
MNC (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a).
In addition to its treatment as an organizational-
level construct, language in IB is researched as an
individual- and team-level property in line with
the traditions of diversity research (Boxenbaum,
2006). Focusing on the individual level of analysis,
Piekkari (2008) treats language as a skill and part of
an individuals career capital. Klitmøller (2013) in
turn investigates the individuals degree of uency
in the common corporate language of the MNC.
Multifaceted role of language in international business Mary Yoko Brannen et al
497
Journal of International Business Studies
At the team level of analysis, Brannen, Moore, and,
Mughan (2013) show how uency in English as the
corporate language of Tesco plc. and identication
with its corporate culture had differential effects
on task performance.
In our current special issue, language takes on
a variety of distinct focuses, which underscore its
multifaceted and multilevel nature. Tenzer, Pudelko
and Harzing use language diversity to describe the
distribution of differences among the members of a
global team, while Hinds, Neeley and Crampton take
language in teams a step further by showing how
language asymmetries act as a lightning rod which
creates faultlines around power and emotions and
generates subgroup formation. The team level as an
intermediate level of analysis reveals the social char-
acter of language and shows how its use is collec-
tively performed with consequences that reach
beyond the individual language user. Peltokorpi
and Vaara focus on the positive and negative effects
of language-sensitive recruitment around pro-
ciency in the lingua franca on knowledge-sharing,
while Janssens and Steyaert explore variations on
such a language strategy including the possibility of
a multilingual franca approach.
In sum, language-sensitive researchers in IB
embracemultipleanddiversefacetsoftheirsubject,
reecting their disciplinary backgrounds as well
as their underlying philosophical preferences.
A researcher who subscribes to social constructivism
views language very differently from someone who is
more oriented toward a representationalist or objec-
tive language paradigm the former yielding a more
emic analysis, the latter more etic. In this regard, this
special issue reects different research paradigms and
approaches, while drawing them together themati-
cally around the topic of language. Given the dom-
inance of quantitative research in IB (Birkinshaw,
Brannen, & Tung, 2011), language has historically
been researched from an etic perspective, for example,
measuring and quantifying language difference in
terms of distance (Dow & Karunaratna, 2006; West &
Graham, 2004). These contributions have advanced
our understanding of language inuences from
abirds eye view of macro-organizational out-
comes such as trade ows between countries. This
special issue takes a more contextually grounded
emic approach and strives to provide an up-close
and personal(Brannen & Doz, 2010) understand-
ing of the language phenomenon, aiming to cap-
ture in situ how language differences shape the
lived experience of those who work for todays
global organizations.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE IN IBAS A
RESEARCH STREAM
Early Foundations
The eld of IB has addressed the role of language(s)
since the 1970s. Research in international market-
ing and exporting has emphasized the importance
of language considerations when selecting for-
eign markets and selling to overseas customers
(Crick, 1999; Hagen, 1999; Holden, 1998; Johanson
& Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975; Leonidou, 1995;
MacDonald & Cook, 1998; Mughan, 1988, 1990;
Reeves, 1986; Swift, 1991). Johanson and
Wiedersheim-Paul (1975) viewed language as one
of the key factors of psychic distance that prevented
information about the target market from reach-
ing organizational decision makers (see also Dow
& Karunaratna, 2006). Mughan (1990) showed that
British exporters suffered from a loss of business
because they were not able to serve their customers
in the customer language. These early studies paid
attention to the language spoken in the target
market when evaluating the attractiveness and
accessibility of this market. In the eld of industrial
marketing and purchasing, supplierslanguage skills
were seen to inuence their ability to establish
trustful relationships with foreign buyers (Turnbull
& Cunningham, 1981; Turnbull & Welham, 1985).
In service marketing such as health services
(Betancourt, Green, Carrillo, & Park, 2005) and
tourism (Cohen & Cooper, 1986; Leslie & Russell,
2006; Martin & Davies, 2006), linguistically aligned
services have been regarded as a means to increase
foreign market share and create a source of competi-
tive advantage.
This early work went far in elucidating the critical
aspects of language as an important factor in the
external environment of the internationalizing rm.
However, the fuller theoretical ramications of the
language construct in regards to the internal day-
to-day functioning of the global rm had yet to
be explored (Holden, 1987). A seminal article
by Marschan, Welch, and Welch (1997) entitled
Language: The forgotten factor in multinational
managementshifted the focus from thinking of
language as a problematic externality to surfacing
language issues within the everyday internal con-
texts of managing the large MNC. Drawing explicit
attention to the multilingual reality of MNCs,
Marschan et al. (1997) studied subsidiary responses
to what they called language standardization by
headquarters, that is, the introduction of a lingua
franca such as English as a common corporate
Multifaceted role of language in international business Mary Yoko Brannen et al
498
Journal of International Business Studies
language. Since then, terms such as anglicization,
Englishization (Dor, 2004), Englishnization (Neeley,
2012) and corporate Englishization (Boussebaa et al.,
2014) have been proposed to describe how and why
English is imposed on managers and employees of
the MNC. The decision to mandate a lingua franca
such as English is a strong force that shapes organi-
zational processes of inclusion and exclusion. It
tends to privilege certain voices and render particu-
lar bodies of knowledge more valid than others,
which cannot be expressed in English (Welch &
Welch, 2008). This research has led to a more
circumspect position toward the role of languages
in IB and its inuence on global organizational
realities.
Recent Developments
The development of the language stream in IB has
taken three formative turns: (1) the decoupling
of language from culture, (2) the shift of level of
analysis from that of the individual to the organiza-
tion and (3) the joining together of dispersed studies
about language(s) into a recognizable, legitimate
eld of study in the late 1990s and early years of
the millennium. While researchers in other elds
such as linguistics (Räisänen, 2013) and sociology
(SanAntonio, 1987) have also taken up particular
discipline-specic interests in language, what makes
the development of this research stream among
IB scholars distinct is that it stems from a dual
engagement with both the broader business context
and the different language environments in which
IB activities take place. This in-depth contextual
understanding of languages and business provides
IB scholars with the resource to be responsive to the
new domain.
Let us start from the rst formative turn. In IB
research, cross-cultural complexity has typically
been addressed through a culture lens (Brannen &
Doz, 2010; Hofstede, 1984) where the language
construct has been tightly linked to that of national
culture (Hofstede, 1986; Kara & Peterson, 2012).
Similarly, scholars in other disciplines have made
language central to the way in which nation states
are governed and construct their identity (Anderson,
2006; Gellner, 2008). However, as Stahl, Maznevski,
Voigt, and Jonsen (2010) showed in their meta-
analysis of cultural diversity in teams, there is an
important distinction between language-based
similarity and similarity originating from a shared
national culture (see, also Mäkelä, Kalla, & Piekkari,
2007). And, as recent work on people with mixed
cultural origins has pointed out, bicultural and
multicultural does not automatically mean bilingual
and multilingual (Brannen & Thomas, 2010). Thus,
while language is clearly related to culture as a concept,
the rst important step in developing the stream of
language in IB has been to disassociate it and study it
in its own right (Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013).
The second development relates to the shift from
viewing language exclusively as a skill that resides
in the individual to considering it as a constitutive,
collective force contained in the MNC. The perfor-
mative potential of languages to unite, disrupt, form
and disable ows of knowledge between different
parts and units of the networked MNC began to
capture scholarly attention, and IB researchers
started to theorize about language as an organiza-
tional-level concept (Barner-Rasmussen, 2003;
Brannen & Doz, 2012; Fredriksson et al., 2006;
Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a). More specically,
IB researchers sought to capture organizational
dynamics in multilingual headquarters subsidiary
and inter-subsidiary relationships as well as inter-
organizational settings such as international joint
ventures (Brannen & Salk, 2000) and mergers and
acquisitions (Brannen & Peterson, 2009; Piekkari,
Vaara, Tienari, & Säntti, 2005; Vaara et al., 2005).
Importantly, the consequences of language for indi-
vidual and organizational identities, for constella-
tions of MNC relationships and the exercise of
power were important themes that arose from more
recent studies (Vaara et al., 2005).
In the past decade, conceptual contributions also
began to emerge which drew heavily on semiotics and
translation studies (Brannen, 2004; Janssens, Lambert,
& Steyaert, 2004). Critical contributions used the
notion of linguistic imperialismto understand how
language can be a hegemonic force shaping bodies of
knowledge impacting on (management) knowledge
workers themselves (Tietze & Dick, 2013). Themati-
cally, the relationship between the English language
as a dominant language over otherlanguages has
been researched, raising issues of dominance and the
hierarchizing of relationships by language ability
(Barner-Rasmussen & Aarnio, 2011; Heikkilä &
Smale, 2011; Steyaert et al., 2011). Most recently, the
eld has begun to employ cultural and political
models of translation to understand the transforma-
tion of meaning in global contexts (Janssens et al.,
2004; Logemann & Piekkari, forthcoming; Piekkari,
Welch, Welch, Peltonen, & Vesa, 2013).
Since the late 1990s, the stream of language-
sensitive approaches in IB has been growing with
increasing alacrity. This growth has been spurred by
dedicated conference streams (Academy of International
Multifaceted role of language in international business Mary Yoko Brannen et al
499
Journal of International Business Studies
Business, 2013; Academy of International Business,
2014; Critical Management Studies, 2007; European
Group of Organization Studies, 2010; European
Group of Organization Studies, 2013) and special
issues of journals (International Studies of Management
& Organization, 2005; Journal of World Business, 2011)
which have raised the elds awareness about the
existence and inuence of languages in internation-
ally operating companies.
Set against this background, the third develop-
ment was to join the scattered studies undertaken
by individual researchers into a recognizable body of
language-sensitive perspectives on the operations
of the MNC. Scholars on both sides of the Atlantic
had investigated language from a variety of perspec-
tives for many years. Researchers based in northern
Europe (Andersen & Rasmussen, 2004; Barner-
Rasmussen, 2003; Marschan et al., 1997; Marschan-
Piekkari et al., 1999a, 1999b), the United Kingdom
(Holden, 2002, 2008; Feely, 2003) and Australia
(Feely & Harzing, 2003; Harzing & Feely, 2008;
Maclean, 2006; Welch et al., 2005; Welch & Welch,
2008) started to pull the momentum together into a
distinct stream of research in IB. In the United States,
Brannen (2004) coined the term semantic tand
brought it to bear on the transfer of assets in a
multinational context; Luo and Shenkar (2006) put
forth the notion of the MNC as a multilingual
communitywhose members used a range of lan-
guages to interact with each other. Interestingly, the
relative elevation of language as a topic of strategic
importance was anticipated by Maclean (2006:
1379), who saw the shift in the status of languages
from being both too complex and too simple
an issueto becoming a question of strategic
importance worthy of attention by executives
and researchers alike. Yet, as in other streams
of research, the work undertaken by US-based
researchers, on the one hand, and scholars in Aus-
tralia and Europe, on the other, largely developed
in isolation with limited dialog between the two
communities at the time. In this regard, the present
special issue further assists in consolidating the
growing body of research that has been conducted
in various geographical locations and different
language environments. Thus, taken together, the
above three developments form the foundation
of a stream of research which today is known as
language in IB.
Current Issues and Suggested Protocols
Today, this stream of research has established itself
as a legitimate and distinct eld of inquiry. First, as
a community, it has developed a specialist vocabu-
lary which helps to dene the boundaries of the new
domain within IB that is distinct from research on
related constructs such as culture or communica-
tion. For example, instead of focusing on expatriates
as cultural boundary spanners, language-sensitive
researchers have begun to talk about them as
language nodes(Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999b).
Alongside notions of social capital, language-
sensitive researchers are surfacing the concept of
language capital(Welch & Welch, 2008), and next
to cultural distance, language-sensitive researchers
have begun to theorize and measure language dis-
tance(West & Graham, 2004). Further protocols in
regards to nomenclature would include researchers
paying careful attention to the terms they use to
describe in more detail the specicaspectsoflanguage
they are studying. This could involve distinguishing
between national language, corporate language, lingua
franca and technical language, for example.
Second, particular methodological challenges
associated with multilingual research projects have
been articulated. For most IB researchers, eldwork is
not a monolingual experience. Rather, IB research is
characterized by linguistic plurality that necessitates
ongoing interpretation and translation (Xian, 2008).
IB scholars typically collect and analyze data in one
or several languages and then write up their ndings
in yet another language, typically English for pub-
lication in English language journals (Welch &
Piekkari, 2006). Survey instruments are constructed
in multiple languages, and considerable attention is
paid to equivalence of meaning and back transla-
tion of research instruments (Green & White, 1976;
Mullen, 1995; Peng, Peterson, & Shyi, 1991; Usunier,
2011). Language can also act as a type of psychological
priming that then affects survey responses (Harzing,
2005). The contribution by Chidlow, Plakoyiannaki, &
Welch(2014)providesagoodexampleofhowthis
work can be taken forward through the development
of greater sensitivity to the challenges associated
with equivalence and furthering the use of context-
sensitive approaches to translation in IB research and
scholarship.
Third, related to the above, in IB scholarship,
language is rarely tackled systematically as a part of
the entire research process. Rather, it is often
reduced to a procedural necessity around translating
research instruments, interviews or the nal research
paper itself. In other words, translation is treated as
a technicality that accounts for the mechanical
process of replacing empirical data expressed in
a non-English language with their equivalents in
Multifaceted role of language in international business Mary Yoko Brannen et al
500
Journal of International Business Studies
English. Yet both theoretical (Janssens et al., 2004;
Steyaert & Janssens, 2013) and empirical accounts
(Xian, 2008) point to the transformative power of
translation. The act of translating data whether
quantitative or qualitative is subject to language-
related decisions, which in turn are inuenced
by cultural, political and institutional context. The
resultant text may therefore be imbued with unin-
tended, and in many cases, equivocal or erroneous
meaning (Brannen, 2004). These acts of transforma-
tion are rarely made visible and discussed in pub-
lished work. The contribution by Chidlow et al.
(2014) in this issue provides an intellectual trajec-
tory to capture the transformation of data beyond
assumptions of equivalence.
Fourth, there are no established protocols for writ-
ing up and publishing research projects in English
that were originally conceived within non-English
research traditions and are based on foreign lan-
guage data. Some reective accounts exist in reports
on international collaborative research, providing
evidence that language and translation matter
(Thomas, Tienari, Davies, & Meriläinen, 2009). They
include attending to the multiple languages that
researchers bring to bear on the research process
from data gathering to interpretation. Ignoring the
interplay between languages during the research
process may lead to what some have referred to
as premature closure of meaning(Meriläinen,
Tienari, Thomas, & Davies, 2008: 587), or the silen-
cing of non-English speakersperspectives and
experiences. Going forward, protocols might include
a systematic account of how deeply and intensively
translators or interpreters have been involved at
different stages of the research process, a discussion
of problems associated with translating or interpret-
ing particular local expressions or phrases into Eng-
lish and reproduction of some key data in the
original local language in the research account. IB
journals could be at the forefront in institutionaliz-
ing such protocols as best practice.
LOOKING AHEAD
The alignment of vocabularies and methodological
approaches has shaped the identity of this new
community of IB researchers and encouraged its
members to engage in a dialog with other linguisti-
cally infused elds.
1
In management scholarship, we
currently see two distinct communities that have
similarly focused on language issues organization
theorists and IB researchers (Janssens et al., 2004).
However, to date these two communities exist in
parallel. Organization theorists have embraced
discourse, rhetoric and narrative analysis and explored
themes such as strategy and strategy making,forma-
tion of identity (e.g., gender, postcolonial, profes-
sional) as well as organizational and institutional
change (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000; Knights &
Morgan, 1991; Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004).
Despite the undisputable merits of these efforts, from
the viewpoint of IB scholarship, a monolingual world-
view seems to underlie them, as if day-to-day organiza-
tional life would be conducted in one language only
English. Steyaert and Janssens (2013) point to the
paradox of monolingual scholarship in a multilingual
world.ForanincreasingnumberofIBresearchers,
global realities are indeed constructed through a multi-
tude of languages (Piekkari, Welch, & Welch, 2014;
Tietze, 2010). This will be increasingly evidenced with
the growing importance of BRIC economies and
increasing importance of their languages Spanish,
Chinese and Russian.
There are several contributions from our call for
papers on language in IB that unite these hitherto
separate research communities of organizational
theorists and IB researchers and take the rst steps
toward developing a shared research agenda. Bous-
sebaa et al. apply a postcolonial perspective from
organization theory to understand relationships of
power and hegemony in global services. Janssens and
Steyaert (2014) in this issue develop the notion of
the lingua franca and add more differentiation to its
multifaceted manifestations including the concept of
amultilingual franca. Santacreu-Vasut, Shenkar, and,
Shoham (2014) provide an example of how gender as
a major research theme in organization theory is
highly relevant for the domain of language and
languages in IB around comparing the career trajec-
tories of women in countries with languages that do
or do not utilize gender-marking.
Another example of shared research interests is
encapsulated by the MNC. There is an on-going
dialog, perhaps even a debate, between IB scholars
and organizational theorists about whether MNCs
differ from domestically operating organizations in
degree only or also in kind (Ghoshal & Westney,
1993; Roth & Kostova, 2003). The argument con-
cerning the degree of difference between these two
types of rms is relatively easy to make. The sheer
number of countries that an MNC operates in adds
to the complexity of the management task. How-
ever, the question of whether the MNC differs in
kind is harder to answer. Roth and Kostova (2003:
895) explicitly mention language as a trait that
renders the MNC conceptually distinct and makes it
an attractive research site for theory development.
Multifaceted role of language in international business Mary Yoko Brannen et al
501
Journal of International Business Studies
As we have discussed, all rms domestic or
otherwise, monolingual or otherwise operate
across diverse language contexts. However, rms in
bilingual or multilingual societies such as Canada,
Finland or Switzerland often dene their identity
through their linguistic nature
2
either through
their bilingualism or multilingualism. Curiously,
the MNC does not. Some US rms, in which the
ofcial corporate language and the home country
language coincide, impose a monolingual English-
only policy marking their identity (SanAntonio,
1987), and they are met with resistance as a large
number of their employees based in non-English-
speaking countries do not subscribe to what they see
as an imposed identity. In other instances, English as
the business lingua franca (Louhiala-Salminen et al.,
2005) together with the corporate or technical lan-
guage (Brannen & Doz, 2012) become unifying
codes for the MNC that help navigate the complex
language landscape of their geographically dispersed
global operations. Thus, in degree, MNCs differ from
domestic rms in terms of the diversity of language
frontiers they have to cross and manage on a daily
basis. In kind, they differ in terms of the nature and
inuence of the language resources that MNCs can
draw on in their day-to-day operations.
Taking further stock of the research to date on
language in MNCs, IB scholars have rarely explored
the impact of language on organization-based per-
formance directly. Instead, they have made explicit
the indirect link between language diversity, man-
agement processes and MNC performance. In their
conceptual article, Luo and Shenkar (2006: 324)
write that [g]lobal language design affects corporate
performance via several channelssuch as commu-
nication, coordination, knowledge sharing and
value creation. Previous empirical ndings show
that the adoption of a common corporate language
changes headquarterssubsidiary relationships
(Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a), affects cohesion
within the MNC (Barner-Rasmussen & Björkman,
2007) and affects the ability of the MNC to exercise
control over its foreign subsidiaries located in differ-
ent language environments (Björkman & Piekkari,
2009). Unlike diversity research, where the focus
of the extant research has been on the diversity
performance link (Stahl et al., 2010), IB researchers
have primarily devoted their attention to the inter-
vening variablesand processes between language as
an input and performance as an output.
The challenge of capturing language implications
for individual-based or organizational-based per-
formance offers the opportunity to engage in
interdisciplinary blending and scholarship. Experi-
mental studies in cross-cultural psychology, for exam-
ple, suggest that cognitive processes such as judgment
and decision making are affected when an individual
uses a foreign language that she/he has not mastered
well (Keysar, Hayakawa, & An, 2012; Takano & Noda,
1993). In such situations an individualsability
to process thoughts in a logical, sequential manner
may temporarily decline (Takano & Noda, 1993), and
decision biases are reduced (Keysar et al., 2012).
Keysar et al. (2012) argue that decision makers are
able to emotionally distance themselves from the
issue at hand when they use a foreign language and,
therefore, the effect of framing manipulation disap-
pears. A study on the decision making of Dutch
students, for example, demonstrates that when stu-
dents make decisions in Englishthey also identify
with aspects of Anglophone culture such as masculi-
nity, performance and assertiveness (Akkermans,
Harzing, & Van Witteloostuijn, 2010).
Extrapolating the ndings and logics of these
papers, there are potential implications for many
decision-making bodies in MNCs. For example,
corporate boards are talkingin one language
(frequently English) but thinkingin another,
which may well affect how problems get framed in
the rst instance and, consequently, how decisions
are made. Many Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish and
Danish MNCs have changed the working language
of their corporate boards from a national Nordic
language to English after the entry of the rst foreign
board member. There is evidence of what Piekkari,
Oxelheim and, Randøy (2013) call the silent
boardsin which the introduction of English impov-
erishes the quality of discussions in board meetings.
One can speculate how the language change, at least
initially, inuences board effectiveness and com-
pany performance.
Despite these efforts and contributions, the multi-
ple forms, functions and features of language in
MNCs have so far not been fully appreciated or
researched. This special issue goes far in extend-
ing the existing body of research on language in
providing papers that advance the state of the art
with methodological innovations, new theoretical
ideas and research questions. While some of the
articles make novel contributions through interdis-
ciplinary pollination, others take up well-established
IB phenomena and re-examine current IB models
and frameworks through a language lens, and others
offer a re-engagement of IB scholars with methodo-
logical issues involving language that goes beyond
translation and back-translation of research
Multifaceted role of language in international business Mary Yoko Brannen et al
502
Journal of International Business Studies
instruments. In addition to educating the under-
standing of language in IB, we hope that our special
issue will catalyze a more reexive reporting and
discussion of these methodological issues and open
new horizons for theorizing in future IB research.
OVERVIEW OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE
Our call for papers generated 78 submissions. This,
in and of itself, is a testament to the growing interest
in the multifaceted conceptualization of language in
the eld of IB. Out of these submissions a total of
12 articles were accepted for publication in JIBS by
the time we had to go to print. Due to page limit
constraints, only six out of these accepted papers are
included herein, and the remaining articles are
slated for publication in forthcoming issues (and at
the time of going to press ve of these are already
available on the Advance Online Publication section
of the JIBS website). In total, these 12 papers cover a
wide range of aspects of language in IB including
level of analysis, focal points and theoretical con-
tribution that go far in illuminating the multifaceted
role of language that our special issue aims to bring
to light and set as the course for a new research
domain in IB.
The rst two papersfocus on language issues as they
impact global teams. In The impact of language
barriers on trust formation in multinational teams,
Helene Tenzer, Markus Pudelko and Anne-Wil Harz-
ing argue that language barriers produce cognitive
and emotional reactions among team members,
affecting team membersperceptions of trustworthi-
ness and intentions to trust. Their work draws on
90 interviews with team members, team leaders
and senior managers in 15 multinational teams in
three German automotive companies. Based on this
comparative multiple case study, Tenzer et al. propose
language as a distinct dimension of diversity and
distinguish between deep-level and surface-level
diversity offering propositions and a theoretical
model for future testing. They further delineate trust
formation as a key team process that has important
implications for team efciency and performance.
In Language as a lightning rod: Power contests,
emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in glo-
bal teamsusing qualitative methodology, Pamela
Hinds, Tsedal Neeley and Catherine Cramton induce
a model that captures how asymmetries in language
uency contribute to an us vs themdynamic that
often transpires in global teams. Their ndings
extend IB theory on subgroup dynamics in global
teams by adding language as a potential faultline,
showing how power struggles activate such faulti-
ness and are in turn reinforced. They also document
the emotion regulation processes triggered by sub-
grouping and enacted through language-related
choices and behaviors.
In the third paper, Translation in cross-language
international business research: Beyond equiva-
lence, Agnieszka Chidlow, Emmanuella Plakoyian-
naki and Catherine Welch analyze cross-language
studies published in four key IB journals (International
Business Review,Journal of International Business Stu-
dies,Journal of World Business,Management Interna-
tional Review). The authors demonstrate that the
overall approach taken by IB scholars is based on
a technicist view of translation, which assumes that
equivalence of meaning between languages exists
and that it can be accounted for in research studies
by following cursory protocols of back-translation. In
contrast, the authors advocate a turn to contextua-
lized translation theories, viz. skopos theory and
cultural politics, to inform future cross-language IB
research as based on explicit acknowledgment and
treatment of translation as social practice. Thus,
translation itself can be treated as data and as a source
of contextual insights and conceptual understanding.
In Building professional discourse in emerg-
ing markets: Language, context and the challenge
of sensemaking, Andrei Kuznetsov and Olga
Kuznetsova focus on the notion of professional
discourse among business and management
practitioners and academics and investigates the
consequences if such professional discourse is lack-
ing or underdeveloped. Located in several former
post-communist Soviet economies, the retrospec-
tive-observational study employs a sense-making
framework and shows that a lack of a professional
language leads to communicative disengagement,
which increases the liability of foreignness”–the
additional cost or risk a rm operating in non-
domestic market incurs. The authors propose that
the lack of professional discourse constitutes a lin-
guistic hazard for a foreign rm and that it should
be factored into business strategies of MNCs. The
use of English as lingua franca does not fully resolve
the lack of professional discourse, as it cannot com-
pensate for the constrained terminological capacity
of the native professional language.
In Knowledge transfer in multinational corpora-
tions: Productive and counterproductive effects
of language-sensitive recruitment, Vesa Peltokorpi
and Eero Vaara focus on the productive and counter-
productive effects of language-sensitive recruitment
on knowledge transfer in MNCs. To examine
these effects, the authors used a mixed method
Multifaceted role of language in international business Mary Yoko Brannen et al
503
Journal of International Business Studies
triangulation, rst deploying qualitative case studies
of 101 foreign subsidiaries to inductively develop a
model on the communication competence, net-
work, identity and power-related effects of lan-
guage-sensitive recruitment. Then they utilized
survey data to validate the results of the qualitative
analysis. The ndings show an inverted U-shaped
relationship between language-sensitive recruiting
and knowledge transfer.
In Re-Considering Language Within A Cosmopo-
litan Understanding: Towards A Multilingual Franca
Approach In International Business Studies, Maddy
Janssens and Chris Steyaert apply sociolinguistics
and cosmopolitan theory to conceive language as a
social practice and posit globalization as the entan-
glement between universality and particularity in
linguistic traditions. Combining these linguistic and
global assumptions, the authors offer a nuanced
understanding of the various approaches to lingua
franca in MNCs global work settings: monological
lingua franca, monological multilingualism, and
multilingual franca. As the latter approach is unex-
plored, the authors contribute strongly to the IB eld
offering a novel option to the challenge of managing
languages in an international business.
In addition to the six articles included in this
issue, the following forthcoming papers have been
accepted at JIBS as a result of our call for papers
on language in IB: Englishization in offshore
call centres: A postcolonial perspective,by Mehdi
Boussebaa, Sinha Shuchi and Gabriel Yiannis, A
more expansive perspective on translation in IB
research: Insights from the Russian Handbook of
Knowledge Management, by Snejina Michailova
and Nigel Holden; Brain drain: The cognitive
neuroscience of foreign language processing in
multinational corporations, by Stefan Volk, Tine
Köhler and Markus Pudelko; Linguistic gender
marking and its international business ramica-
tions, by Estefania Santacreu-Vasut, Oded Shenkar
and Amir Shoham; Cultural and language skills as
resources for boundary spanning within the MNC,
by Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen, Mats Ehrnrooth,
Alexei Koveshnikov and Kristiina Mäkelä; and
How non-native English speaking staff are evalu-
ated in linguistically diverse organizations: A socio-
linguistic perspective, by Marjana Johansson and
Martyna S
´liwa.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge our three anonymous
reviewers, and the EIC, John Cantwell, for their helpful
comments on earlier drafts of this introduction. We
also thank Bea Alanko of the Aalto University for help
in formatting and finalizing the manuscript. Final
thanks go to Trixie Brannen for patiently standing by
while this Special Issue was put to bed.
NOTES
1
Rorty (1992) has termed this phenomenon in which
diverse disciplines began taking up language as
a central construct a linguistic turn in the evolution
of theory development in a field of research.
2
We owe this insight to Eleanor Westney (personal
communication, 25 October 2013). The linking of
language to national identity has been made in
multiple disciplines cf. noted work by Anderson
(2006) in anthropology, Gellner (2008) in political
science and Babha (1990) in literary criticism.
REFERENCES
Akkermans, D., Harzing, A. -W., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. 2010.
Cultural accommodation and language priming: Competitive
versus cooperative behavior in a prisoner dilemma game.
Management International Review, 50(5): 559583.
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. 2000. Varieties of discourse: On the
study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human
Relations, 53(9): 11251149.
Andersen, H., & Rasmussen, E. S. 2004. The role of language skills
in corporate communication. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 9(2): 231242.
Anderson, B. 2006. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin
and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
Archibugi, D. 2005. The language of democracy: Vernacular or
Esperanto? A comparison between the multiculturalist and
cosmopolitan perspectives. Political Studies, 53(3): 537555.
Astley, W. G., & Zammuto, R. F. 1992. Organization science,
managers, and language games. Organization Science, 3(4):
443460.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School.
Barner-Rasmussen, W. 2003. Knowledge sharing in multinational
corporations: A social capital perspective. PhD Dissertation,
Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration,
Helsinki, Finland.
Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Aarnio, C. 2011. Shifting the faultlines
of language: A quantitative functional-level exploration of
language use in MNC subsidiaries. Journal of World Business,
46(3): 288295.
Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Björkman, I. 2007. Language fluency,
socialization and inter-unit relationships in Chinese and Finnish
subsidiaries. Management and Organization Review, 3(1):
105128.
Betancourt, J. R., Green, A. R., Carrillo, J. E., & Park, E. R.
2005. Cultural competence and health care disparities:
Key perspectives and trends. Health Affairs,24(2):
499505.
Bhabha, H. 1990. DissemiNation: Time, narrative, and the margins
of the modern nation. New York: Routledge.
Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. 2011. From a distance
and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a
Multifaceted role of language in international business Mary Yoko Brannen et al
504
Journal of International Business Studies
place for qualitative methods in international business research.
Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 573581.
Björkman, A., & Piekkari, R. 2009. Language and foreign sub-
sidiary control: An empirical test. Journal of International Man-
agement, 15(1): 105117.
Boussebaa, M., Sinha, S., & Gabriel, Y. 2014. Englishization in
offshore call centers: A postcolonial perspective. Journal of
International Business Studies, advance online publication
22 May. doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.25.
Boxenbaum, E. 2006. Lost in translation: The making of Danish
diversity management. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7):
939948.
Brannen, M. Y. 2004. When Mickey loses face: Recontextualiza-
tion, semantic fit and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of
Management Review, 29(4): 593616.
Brannen, M. Y., & Doz, Y. L. 2010. From a distance and detached
to up close and personal: Bridging strategic and cross-cultural
perspectives in international management research and prac-
tice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(3): 236247.
Brannen, M. Y., & Doz, Y. L. 2012. Corporate languages and
strategic agility: Trapped in your jargon or lost in translation?
California Management Review, 54(3): 7797.
Brannen, M. Y., & Peterson, M. F. 2009. Merging without
alienating: Interventions promoting cross-cultural organiza-
tional integration and their limitations. Journal of International
Business Studies, 40(3): 468489.
Brannen, M. Y., & Salk, J. E. 2000. Partnering across borders:
Negotiating organizational culture in a German-Japanese joint
venture. Human Relations, 53(4): 451487.
Brannen, M. Y., & Thomas, D. C. 2010. Bicultural individuals in
organizations: Implications and opportunity. International Jour-
nal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(1): 516.
Brannen, M. Y., Moore, F., & Mughan, T. 2013. Strategic
ethnography and reinvigorating Tesco Plc: Leveraging inside/
out bicultural bridging in multicultural teams. In EPIC 2013
London. Proceedings of the Ethnographic Praxis in Industry
Conference; 1518 September, London, 255272. Arlington,
VA: American anthropological Association.
Chidlow, A., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welch, C. 2014. Translation in
cross-language international business research: Beyond equiva-
lence. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5): 562582.
Cohen, E., & Cooper, R. L. 1986. Language and tourism. Annals of
Tourisms Research, 13(4): 533563.
Cooren,F.,Kuhn,T.,Cornelissen,J.P.,&Clark,T.2011.Commu-
nication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduc-
tion to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32(9): 11491170.
Crick, D. 1999. An investigation into SMEsuse of languages in
their export operations. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, 5(1): 1931.
Daft, R. L., & Wiginton, J. C. 1979. Language and organization.
Academy of Management Review, 4(2): 179191.
Dor, D. 2004. From Englishization to imposed multilingualism:
Globalization, the internet and the political economy on the
linguistic code. Public Culture, 16(1): 97118.
Dow, D., & Karunaratna, A. 2006. Developing a multidimen-
sional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37(5): 578602.
Duranti, A. 1997. Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Feely, A. J. 2003. Communication across language boundaries. In
M. Tayeb (Ed), International management: Theories and practices:
206235. London: Pearson Education.
Feely, A. J., & Harzing, A. -W. 2003. Language management in
multinational companies. Cross-Cultural Management: An Inter-
national Journal, 10(2): 3752.
Fredriksson, R., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Piekkari, R. 2006. The
multinational corporation as a multilingual organization: The
notion of a common corporate language. Corporate Commu-
nications: An International Journal, 11(4): 406423.
Gellner, E. 2008. Nations and nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Ghoshal, S., & Westney, D. E. 1993. Organizational theory and the
multinational. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Green, R. T., & White, P. D. 1976. Methodological considerations
in cross-national consumer research. Journal of International
Business Studies, 10(2): 8187.
Hagen, S. 1999. Business communication across borders. A study of
language use and practice in European countries. Stirling: CILT/
Languages NTQ.
Harzing, A.-W. 2005. Does the use of English-language question-
naires in cross-national research obscure national differences?
International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 5(2):
213224.
Harzing, A. -W., & Feely, A. J. 2008. The language barrier and its
implications for HQsubsidiary relationships. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, 15(1): 4960.
Heikkilä, J.-P., & Smale, A. 2011. The effects of language
standardizationon the acceptance and use of e-HRM sys-
tems in foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 4(3):
305313.
Hofstede, G. 1984. Cultures consequences: International differences
in work-related values. London: Sage.
Hofstede, G. 1986. Cultural differences in teaching and learn-
ing. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3):
301320.
Holden, N. 1987. The treatment of language and linguistic issues
in the current English-language international management
literature. Multilingua, 6(3): 233246.
Holden, N. 1998. International marketing studies: Time to break
the English strangle-hold? International Marketing Review,
15(2): 86100.
Holden, N. 2002. Cross-cultural management: A knowledge man-
agement perspective. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Holden, N. J. 2008. Reflections of a cross-cultural scholar: Context
and language in management thought. International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, 8(2): 239250.
Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. 2014. Re-considering language
within a cosmopolitan understanding: Toward a multilingual
franca approach in international business studies. Journal of
International Business Studies, 45(5): 623639.
Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. 2004. Developing
language strategies for international companies: The contribu-
tion of translation studies. Journal of World Business, 39(4):
414430.
Johanson, J., & Wiedersheim-Paul, F. 1975. The internationaliza-
tion of the firm Four Swedish cases. Journal of Management
Studies, 12(3): 305322.
Kara, A., & Peterson, M. F. 2012. The dynamic societal cultural
milieu of organizations: Origins, maintenance and change.
Advances in International Management, 25: 341371.
Kassis Henderson, J. 2005. Language diversity in international
management teams. International Studies of Organization &
Management, 35(2): 6682.
Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & An, S. G. 2012. The foreign-
language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision
biases. Psychological Science, 23(6): 661668.
Klitmøller, A. 2013. (Re)contextualizing cultural and linguistic
boundaries in multinational corporations: A global ethnographic
approach. PhD Dissertation, Aarhus University, Aarhus,
Denmark.
Klitmøller, A., & Lauring, J. 2013. When global virtual teams
share knowledge: Media richness, cultural difference and
language commonality. Journal of World Business, 48(3):
398406.
Knights, D., & Morgan, G. 1991. Corporate strategy, organiza-
tions, and subjectivity: A critique. Organization Studies, 12(2):
251273.
Leonidou, L. C. 1995. Empirical research on export barriers:
Review, assessment, and synthesis. Journal of International
Marketing, 3(1): 2943.
Leslie, D., & Russell, H. 2006. The importance of foreign language
skills in the tourism sector: A comparative study of student
Multifaceted role of language in international business Mary Yoko Brannen et al
505
Journal of International Business Studies
perceptions in the UK and continental Europe. Tourism Manage-
ment, 27(6): 13971407.
Logemann, M. 2013. Strategic change under construction: Role of
strategy narratives. PhD Dissertation, School of Business, Aalto
University, Helsinki, Finland.
Logemann, M., & Piekkari, R. forthcoming. Localise or local lies?
The power of language and translation in the MNC. Critical
Perspectives on International Business, accepted.
Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M., & Kankaanranta, A. 2005.
English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers:
Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4):
401421.
Luo, Y., & Shenkar, O. 2006. The multinational corporation as
a multilingual community: Language and organization in
a global context. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3):
321339.
MacDonald, S., & Cook, M. 1998. An exploration of the use
of language training in exporting firms. Case studies from
Northamptonshire. Local Economy, 13(3): 216227.
Maclean, D. 2006. Beyond English: Transnational corporations
and the strategic management of language in a complex
multilingual business environment. Management Decision,
44(10): 13771390.
Marschan, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. 1997. Language: The
forgotten factor in multinational management. European
Management Journal, 15(5): 591598.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. 1999a. In
the shadow: The impact of language on structure, power
and communication in the multinational. International Business
Review, 8(4): 421440.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. 1999b.
Adopting a common corporate language: IHRM implications.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(3):
377390.
Martin, A., & Davies, S. 2006. An evaluation of the language
skills in Scottish hotels. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and
Tourism Education, 5(1): 415.
Meriläinen, S., Tienari, J., Thomas, R., & Davies, T. 2008.
Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences of publishing from
the periphery. Organization, 15(4): 584597.
Mughan, T. 1988. Why British firms must break through the
language barrier. The Times, 17 September.
Mughan, T. 1990. Is languages for exportenough? European
Business Review, 90(3): 2225.
Mullen, M. R. 1995. Diagnosing measurement equivalence in
cross-national research. Journal of International Business Studies,
26(3): 573596.
Mäkelä, K., Kalla, H., & Piekkari, R. 2007. Interpersonal similarity
as a driver for knowledge sharing within multinational corpora-
tions. International Business Review, 16(1): 122.
Neeley, T. 2012. Global business speaks English. Harvard Business
Review, 90(5): 116124.
Peng, T. K., Peterson, M. F., & Shyi, Y. -P. 1991. Quantitative
methods in crossnational management research: Trends and
equivalence issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(2):
87107.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T., & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse and
institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 635652.
Piekkari, R. 2008. Languages and careers in multinational cor-
porations. In S. Tietze (Ed), International management and
language 128137. London: Routledge.
Piekkari, R., Oxelheim, L., & Randøy, T. 2013. The role of
language in corporate governance: The case of board inter-
nationalization. IFN Working Paper no. 974, Research Institute
of Industrial Economics, Stockholm.
Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Säntti, R. 2005. Integration or
disintegration? Human resource implications of a common
corporate language decision in a cross-border merger. Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(3): 333347.
Piekkari, R., Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. 2014. Language in
international business: The multilingual reality of global business
expansion. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Piekkari, R., Welch, D. E., Welch, L. S., Peltonen, J. -P., & Vesa, T.
2013. Translation behavior: An exploratory study within a service
multinational. International Business Review,22(5):771783.
Pike, K. L. 1967. Etic and emic standpoints for the description
of behavior. In D. C. Hildum (Ed), Language and thought:
An enduring problem in psychology: 3239. Princeton, NJ: D.
Van Norstrand Company.
Reeves, N. 1986. Education for exporting capability: Languages
and market penetration. Journal of the Royal Society of Arts,
134(5355): 182197.
Rorty, R. (Ed) 1992. The linguistic turn: Essays in philosophical
method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roth, K., & Kostova, T. 2003. The use of the multinational
corporation as a research context. Journal of Management,
29(6): 883902.
Räisänen, T. 2013. Professional communicative repertoires and
trajectories of socialization into global working life. PhD Disserta-
tion, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
SanAntonio, P. M. 1987. Social mobility and language use in an
American company in Japan. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 6(34): 191200.
Santacreu-Vasut, E., Shenkar, O., & Shoham, A. 2014. Linguistic
gender marking and its international business ramifications.
Journal of International Business Studies, advance online publica-
tion 20 February, doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.5.
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. 2010.
Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-
analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of
International Business Studies, 41(4): 690709.
Steyaert, C., & Janssens, M. 2013. Multilingual scholarship and
the paradox of translating and language in management and
organization studies. Organization, 20(1): 131142.
Steyaert, C., Ostendorp, A., & Gaibrois, C. 2011. Multilingual
organizations as linguascapes: Negotiating the position of
English through discursive practices. Journal of World Business,
46(3): 270278.
Swift, J. S. 1991. Foreign language ability and international
marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 25(12): 3649.
Takano, Y., & Noda, A. 1993. A temporary decline of thinking
ability during foreign language processing. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 24(4): 445462.
Thomas, R., Tienari, J., Davies, A., & Meriläinen, S. 2009. Lets
talk about us: A reflexive account of a cross-cultural
research collaboration. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4):
313324.
Tietze, S. 2004. Spreading the management gospel in English.
Language and Intercultural Communication, 4(3): 175189.
Tietze, S. 2008. International management and language. London:
Routledge.
Tietze, S. 2010. International managers as translators. European
Journal of International Management, 4(12): 184199.
Tietze, S., & Dick, P. 2013. The victorious English language:
Hegemonic practices in the management academy. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 22(1): 122134.
Turnbull, P., & Cunningham, M. T. 1981. International marketing
and purchasing: A survey among marketing and purchasing in five
European countries. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Turnbull, P., & Welham, G. F. 1985. The characteristics of
European export marketing staff. European Journal of Marketing,
19(2): 3141.
Usunier, J. -C. 2011. Language as a resource to assess cross-
cultural equivalence in quantitative management research.
Journal of World Business, 46(3): 314319.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R., & Säntti, R. 2005. Language and
the circuits of power in a merging multinational corporation.
Journal of Management Studies, 42(3): 595623.
Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. 2006. Crossing language boundaries:
Qualitative interviewing in international business. Management
International Review, 46(4): 417437.
Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. 2008. The importance of language in
international knowledge transfer. Management International
Review, 48(3): 339360.
Multifaceted role of language in international business Mary Yoko Brannen et al
506
Journal of International Business Studies
Welch, D. E., Welch, L. S., & Piekkari, R. 2005. Speaking in
tongues: The importance of language in international manage-
ment processes. International Studies of Management & Organi-
zation, 35(1): 1027.
West, J., & Graham, J. L. 2004. A linguistic-based measure
of cultural distance and its relationship to managerial values.
Management International Review, 44(3): 239260.
Xian, H. 2008. Lost in translation? Language, culture and the
roles of translator in cross-cultural management research.
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal, 3(3): 231245.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Mary Yoko Brannen is Professor of International
Business at the Peter B. Gustavson School of Business
and holds the Jarislowsky East Asia (Japan) Chair at
the Centre for Asia-Pacic Initiatives at the Univer-
sity of Victoria. Her research focuses on knowledge
sharing, multinational integration and understand-
ing boundary-spanning capabilities of people with
multicultural identities. She is Deputy Editor of JIBS
and has published in such journals as the Academy of
Management Review,Academy of Management Journal,
Human Relations,Journal of Management Inquiry and
the Anthropology of Work Review.
Rebecca Piekkari is Professor of International
Business at Aalto University, School of Business in
Finland. Her research focuses on language in inter-
national business and the use of qualitative methods
in management and organizational research. She has
also participated in the discussion about language
as a methodological question. Her work has been
published in journals such as the Academy of Manage-
ment Review,Journal of Management Studies and
Journal of International Business Studies, as well as in
several handbooks in the area.
Susanne Tietze is Professor of Management at Keele
University, Keele Management School, UK. Using an
interpretive approach her research has focused on
exible working practices, gender, identity, culture,
languages, discourse and communication in organi-
zational settings. Current research projects are
exploring the agentic role of the translator in knowl-
edge translation between different localities. Her
work has been published in journals such as Organi-
zation Studies,Journal of Management Studies,Inter-
national Journal of Human Resource Management, and
Journal of Business Ethics.
Multifaceted role of language in international business Mary Yoko Brannen et al
507
Journal of International Business Studies
... In MNCs, such communication is distinctly shaped by the multilingual nature of the organization (Harzing & Feely, 2008;Kassis-Henderson, 2005;Luo (Marschan et al., 1997;. While many issues remain unexplored (Brannen et al., 2014;Hurmerinta et al., 2015), a key insight emerging from this literature is the pivotal role of the language barrier as a critical and pervasive challenge to communication in MNCs (Harzing & Feely, 2008;Suzuki et al., 2023;Tenzer et al., 2021). Language barriers may hamper communication and disrupt group processes at all organizational levels, ranging from teams (e.g., Tenzer & Pudelko, 2017;Tenzer et al., 2014) to interorganizational units (Barner-Rasmussen & Björkman, 2007;Harzing & Feely, 2008;Harzing et al., 2011). ...
... Further, prior research has identified foreign language proficiency (Fleischmann, Folter, & Aritz, 2020;Kratzer et al., 2004;Lagerström & Andersson, 2003;Tenzer et al., 2021) and foreign language anxiety (e.g., Aichhorn & Puck, 2017b;Neeley, 2013) as important moderators of the relationship between FLU and team processes and outcomes. For example, low proficiency may reduce the ability to structure and express one's knowledge (Brannen et al., 2014;Hurmerinta et al., 2015;Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013;Tenzer et al., 2021). In addition, low-proficiency speakers may face exclusion or ostracism (Fiset & Bhave, 2021;Tenzer et al., 2021), which may hurt teamwork beyond the cognitive domain, extending to socio-emotional elements (Barner- Rasmussen & Björkman, 2007;Lauring & Selmer, 2010;Neeley et al., 2012;Tenzer et al., 2021). ...
... First, literature on language effects in IB (for overviews, see, e.g., Brannen et al., 2014;Karhunen et al., 2018; has established the language barrier as a cause of manifold adverse influences of linguistic diversity and FLU on communication within MNCs at levels ranging from teams to superordinate units, and comprising both ...
... Communication challenges manifest across various aspects of export operations, including negotiations, marketing, advertising, customer service, and supply chain management (Sharma, 2018). These language-related issues can hinder effective communication, potentially leading to misunderstandings and misinterpretations that ultimately obstruct business transactions and development (Brannen et al., 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
This study examines the obstacles encountered by non-Anglophone business owners when exporting to Anglophone countries, thus contributing to the body of knowledge regarding international trade barriers. It employs a qualitative methodology, adopting an interpretive paradigm to explore the multifaceted nature of human behavior and experiences within this context. The data collection methods encompassed semi-structured interviews, participant observations, and thematic analysis of concrete case studies derived from authentic experiences. This study investigated a range of challenges, including linguistic barriers, cross-cultural variations, marketing adaptation strategies, divergent customer expectations, and regulatory compliance issues. This approach elucidates the impediments faced by non-Anglophone business proprietors and delineates their strategies for overcoming these obstacles. The findings identify the key factors influencing export success and provide empirically grounded recommendations for non-Anglophone business owners seeking to enhance their export capabilities in the Anglophone markets. This study contributes to the literature on international entrepreneurship and cross-cultural business practices and offers insights that may inform international trade practitioners and policymakers.
... That said, previous studies have often focused on the uneven linguistic proficiency linked to power struggles, that have often been interpreted with reference to the 'native' versus 'nonnative' categories (Brannen et al., 2017;Woo & Giles, 2017;Śliwa & Johansson, 2014;Gunnarsson, 2014;van der Worp et al., 2018;Wilmot et al., 2023). Critical voices across disciplines and fields have meanwhile questioned the linguistic relevance of the 'native' aspect, exposing the socio-political implications of the terms 'native speaker' (Dewaele & Saito, 2022), 'native language' (Doerr, 2009) and 'mother tongue' (Yildiz, 2012), both in scholarship and practice. ...
Article
Full-text available
This qualitative study investigates stances in reflective interviews to identify cultural patterns that shape the meaning of language choice within an international unit of an EU institution in Luxembourg. We employ the analytical concept of “language cringe” and propose a complementary concept, “language push,” to showcase the effects and reproduction of language ideologies in day-to-day talk about languages at work. Our analysis reveals that, within a workplace culture that encourages flexible and convivial use of multiple languages, French speakers have to deal with the effects of the “logic of honour,” which is culturally associated with the use of French in France. Based on our findings, we suggest that language choice should be considered a cross cultural dimension in multilingual environments, and that language-sensitive management scholarship should broaden its considerations beyond the traditional issues of language proficiency, namely by inspecting relational and affective factors that shape language use in multilingual workplaces.
Article
Развитие языковой среды не происходит спонтанно. Оно обусловлено целым рядом факторов, к которым относится и политика государства, реализуемая во всех сферах общественной жизни. В каждой стране, в которой наблюдается этническое и языковое многообразие, политика государства является инструментом консолидации общества, с одной стороны, и лоббированием интересов, связанных с вопросами национальной, этнической безопасности, с другой. Влияние политических факторов на языковую ситуацию не остается неизменным, оно зависит от целей, стоящих перед обществом на конкретном этапе, и отражает направления его исторического развития. В связи с той непростой ситуацией, в которой сейчас оказался русский язык, важно принять все меры к сохранению русской языковой среды как базовой ценности общества. Этой задаче в большей степени отвечает система образования, являющаяся инструментом трансляции культурно-исторического опыта русского народа. Привлечение иностранных студентов к системе российского образования крайне актуально в сложившейся ситуации и возможно лишь путем интеграции иностранного контингента в русскоязычной образовательной среде. The development of a language environment does not occur spontaneously. It is influenced by a number of factors, including the state's policies implemented in all spheres of public life. In every country with ethnic and linguistic diversity, the state's policy serves as a tool for societal consolidation on one hand, and lobbying for interests related to national and ethnic security on the other hand. The influence of political factors on the language situation is not constant; it depends on the goals set by society at a specific stage and reflects the directions of its historical development. Given the challenging situation currently faced by the Russian language, it is important to take all measures to preserve the Russian language environment as a fundamental societal value. The education system, as an instrument for transmitting the cultural-historical experience of the Russian people, plays a significant role in addressing this task. The involvement of foreign students in the Russian education system is highly relevant in the current situation and can only be achieved through the integration of foreign students into the Russian-speaking educational environment.
Article
Full-text available
In this paper, based on the characteristics of teaching English polite phrases, the acquired research data are subjected to the segmentation operation, and a graph convolutional neural network is used to iteratively train them, finally completing the modeling of the knowledge graph of English polite phrases and determining the parameters of the model. The constructed knowledge graph is ready to be introduced into the English polite language teaching activities, and a model for teaching English polite language has been designed based on it. Simulation experiments and independent sample t-tests are used to validate and analyze the knowledge graph model and the teaching model, respectively. Upon analysis, it was found that the model in this paper could quickly and accurately identify the number of times the English verbs of polite phrases appeared, which was reflected in the fact that Promise appeared five times and Praise appeared four times. After the teaching intervention, the English test scores of students in Group E (Mean: 15.994) were significantly higher than those of Group C (Mean: 12.152), and the difference between the scores of the two groups was statistically significant (t=6.811, P=0.002<0.05), which confirmed that the English politeness language teaching model of the Knowledge Graph has a facilitating effect on the students’ English scores, and at the same time, summarized the effect of English politeness language education in cultural communication. This study improves the quality of English polite language teaching and students’ learning effect so that the informatization of English polite language teaching in colleges and universities can be further developed and plays a role in promoting global cultural communication.
Article
Full-text available
Language-related IB research predominantly targets large MNCs, often overlooking the challenges that internationalizing SMEs face in effectively utilizing their limited language resources. To address this gap and assist SMEs in overcoming their unique language challenges, we develop a scale for language operative capacity (LOC), which measures a firm’s capacity to deploy language resources most productively throughout its global operations. We validate this instrument with data from 417 SMEs and examine its impact on two critical internationalization metrics: export performance and international networking capability. Our study makes three key contributions to language-related IB research and capacity research. First, we provide a comprehensive and robust LOC instrument, incorporating distinctions between potential and realized capacity from the capacity literature. Second, we offer a deeper understanding of language as a multi-level phenomenon by highlighting the interaction between individual-level language skills and organizational-level capacities. Third, we extend the scarce language-related IB research on SMEs by offering a nuanced understanding of LOC as a strategic resource, by validating the LOC instrument in the context of internationalizing SMEs, and by demonstrating its explanatory power for essential internationalization metrics. Additionally, our research provides SMEs with an actionable tool to assess their linguistic capacities, develop their language resources and optimize the use of these language resources in international operations.
Chapter
This chapter addresses both the wider scope of attributes pertaining to corporate conversational practices, and the specific empirical data retrieved to showcase the linguistic-cultural fundamentals of corporate communication in English-speaking communities.
Article
Few studies to date examined the emotional unrest that results from communication across cultures in multinational teams (MNTs). Through examination of 12 in-depth interviews and a focus group of respondents from MNTs, this study investigates the impact of language-induced emotions in MNTs resulting from a corporate language mandate. Even with highly proficient linguists, MNTs still experience collaborative difficulties caused by language differences and associated emotions. Issues identified include loss of information, ambiguity over equivalence of meaning, variability in sociolinguistic competence, and problems of adjustment to cultural norms. The research also pinpointed several lingua-culturally adaptive behavioral strategies relating to international leadership.
Book
'Imagined Communities' examines the creation & function of the 'imagined communities' of nationality & the way these communities were in part created by the growth of the nation-state, the interaction between capitalism & printing & the birth of vernacular languages in early modern Europe.
Book
Despite a shared interest in the analysis of complex organizations operating in complex environments, macro-organization theory and research on the multinational corporation have developed quite independently of each other. This book, the product of a collaborative endeavour by scholars from both fields, represents the first systematic effort to build a broad bridge between these two areas of research.
Chapter
Darwin (1859) considered language a form of memory that stores information in a genome-like mode. Grammar, according to cognitive science research (Boroditsky, Schmidt, & Phillips, 2003), impacts a speakers’ cognitive framework and mental representation of social reality. Gender is among the most stable grammatical features (Wichmann & Holman, 2009), and comparing languages is valuable for understanding their social role (Corbett, 2011). Such research should have significant value for international business (IB), where national variations are of focal interest but where the study of linguistics has mostly been relegated to a subset of culture. Culture-based research currently relies on aggregate values-based measures of culture (e.g., Hofstede, 1980, 1998; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004), making it susceptible to endogeneity problems, and contemporaneous to gender outcomes. In contrast, a language’s grammatical structure is a stable feature inherited from the distant past, unbiased by present social, political and economic forces.
Book
Language matters in international business and global business expansion inevitably mean encountering challenges of communication, language and translation. This book presents a thorough and rigorous analysis of language related to all aspects of global business - international management, networks, HRM, international marketing, strategy and foreign operations modes. © Rebecca Piekkari, Denice E. Welch and Lawrence S. Welch 2014. All rights reserved.