The impact of language barriers on knowledge processing in multinational teams

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101184Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Evident language barriers reduce participation in multinational team communication.

  • Hidden language barriers impair sensemaking in multinational team communication.

  • Both impede knowledge processing in multinational teams.

  • The instrumental view of language needs to be complemented with a cultural view.

  • The information processing + the sociocognitive view of knowledge are complementary.

Abstract

This qualitative study investigates how language diversity in multinational teams affects communication, which, in turn, influences knowledge processing. We show that evident language barriers (lack of lexical and syntactical proficiency) reduce participation in team communication, which impedes both basic and sophisticated knowledge processing activities. We also demonstrate that hidden language barriers (pragmatic and prosodic transfer between mother tongues and working language) impair sensemaking in the team, which disrupts sophisticated knowledge processing activities. By highlighting the relevance of hidden barriers, our study encourages a more comprehensive conceptualization of language barriers and uncovers the micro-foundations of knowledge processing in multilingual teams. Contrasting evident and hidden barriers, our study juxtaposes the instrumental and the cultural perspective on language. By distinguishing basic and sophisticated knowledge processing activities, we weigh the information processing against the socio-cognitive perspective on knowledge. We integrate these divergent perspectives on language and knowledge processing both within and across the respective research fields.

Introduction

To keep up with changing economic conditions and global competition (Marrone, 2010), multinational corporations (MNCs) utilize team-based approaches (Neck, Bligh, Pearce, & Kohles, 2006). Multinational teams (MNTs) are paramount for global collaboration, particularly for knowledge processing within MNC units (Backmann, Kanitz, Tian, Hoffmann, & Hoegl, 2020). As teams are defined by the interdependency between their members (Harris & Sherblom, 2018), they rely on intense communication to align their members’ contributions. This communication is highly vulnerable to language barriers, since MNTs not only include members of different national and cultural backgrounds (Earley & Gibson, 2002), but typically also unite speakers of different mother tongues (Tenzer, Pudelko, & Harzing, 2014).

MNTs’ knowledge processing is both particularly decisive for their goal fulfilment and particularly vulnerable to language barriers. Global corporations explicitly form MNTs to locate, store, allocate, and retrieve diverse knowledge (Haas & Cummings, 2015), to solve complex tasks or to take high-level decisions (Dahlin, Weingart, & Hinds, 2005). Communication is essential for knowledge processing activities like learning about what others know, bringing new knowledge into employees’ shared repository, and retrieving knowledge from the group (Kotlarsky, van den Hooff, & Houtman, 2015). Language as the vehicle of communication is therefore indispensable for these processes (Reiche, Harzing, & Pudelko, 2015; Wang, Clegg, Gajewska-De Mattos, & Buckley, 2018; Welch & Welch, 2008).

Although knowledge researchers (Ahmad, 2018; Ahmad & Widén, 2015) and international business (IB) scholars (Ahmad & Barner-Rasmussen, 2019; Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2014) agree on the disruptive potential of language barriers for knowledge processing in MNTs, their relationship has not been studied in sufficient depth. To date, IB language research has mostly been concerned with language proficiency problems, assuming that barriers can be removed by increasing MNT members’ fluency in their team’s working language (Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2014). Countering this general position, some IB studies assert that communication is bound by the socio-cognitive contexts of conversation partners (König, Fehn, Puck, & Graf-Vlachy, 2017) and that culture influences how language is used (Chen, Geluykens, & Choi, 2006; Kassis Henderson, 2005; Wang et al., 2018), suggesting that the influence of language on MNT knowledge processing may be more complex. However, this relationship has not been explored in detail and a comprehensive perspective on language effects is still missing. Therefore, we formulated our initial research question very broadly: How do language barriers influence knowledge processing in MNTs?

We tackled our research question using an inductive qualitative approach based on 90 interviews in 15 MNTs. After the first iterations between data generation and data analysis, we soon noticed that the relationship between language barriers and knowledge processing in MNTs is mediated by communication, which is also supported by the literature. Given the relevance of communication as a mediator, we break our initial, broad RQ down into two, more differentiated questions:

RQ 1: How do language barriers affect communication in MNTs?

RQ 2: How do language-induced communication impediments affect MNT knowledge processing?

Regarding RQ 1, our qualitative research highlights the relevance of two kinds of language barriers MNT members are facing, namely evident and hidden barriers, and their adverse impact on participation and sensemaking in MNT communication. More specifically, we provide evidence for the rather counter-intuitive result of communication impediments persisting even in MNTs where all members speak the working language fluently (i.e. face no evident language barriers). This reveals pernicious consequences of (hidden) language barriers for communication. Our contribution thus encourages a more comprehensive conceptualization of language barriers and the ensuing communication challenges in MNTs. With respect to RQ2, we further elucidate how language-based communication impediments hamper what we call basic and sophisticated knowledge processing activities in MNTs. Revealing these processes, our study offers a more holistic understanding of the micro-foundations of knowledge processing in multilingual settings.

On a higher conceptual level, the evident language barriers in our teams resonate with an instrumental perspective on language as a tool in the hands of corporate leaders, whereas hidden barriers reflect the need for a cultural perspective on language as a carrier and expression of culture. Interestingly, our results on knowledge processing similarly reflect the relevance of two different perspectives on knowledge. Basic knowledge processing activities support an information processing perspective on knowledge as something teams can process mathematically, store and retrieve like data on a computer, whereas sophisticated activities resonate with a socio-cognitive perspective that foregrounds complex cognitive and communicative processes such as uncovering implicit assumptions and negotiating meaning. Our findings integrate these previously contrasting perspectives into a holistic perspective and incorporate language-related IB and knowledge processing research as previously separate debates into one conceptual model.

Section snippets

Conceptual background

We built our study’s foundation on two research fields: (1) IB and contiguous social sciences research on the role of language in IB, and (2) IB and related organizational behavior research regarding the role of communication for knowledge processing in MNTs.

Methodology

To answer our research questions, we chose a qualitative research strategy, which is very well suited to examine processes (Pratt, 2009). We specifically pursued an interplay of inductive and abductive approaches. Together, induction and abduction are more likely to generate new theory than induction alone (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012).

The inductive element dominated at the beginning of our investigation. Given the competing perspectives on language, an integrated account of linguistic effects in

Findings

We organize our findings section around our two research questions. For RQ 1, we show how evident language barriers lead to reduced participation in team communication and how hidden language barriers impair joint sensemaking in MNTs. For RQ 2, we demonstrate how reduced participation hampers both basic and sophisticated knowledge processing activities and how particularly disruptive impaired sensemaking is to sophisticated knowledge processing activities.

Discussion

In response to RQ 1, we established that evident language barriers lead to reduced participation in team communication and hidden language barriers to impaired sensemaking. In addressing RQ 2, we uncovered how those language-induced communication impediments obstruct simple and sophisticated knowledge process activities of MNTs.

Conclusion

This paper advances our understanding of the intricate ways language barriers influence communication and affect knowledge processing in MNTs. Based on rich qualitative interview data, we have shown that MNTs are confronted with two kinds of language barriers, evident and hidden ones, which negatively affect participation and sensemaking in MNT communication. We further demonstrated how these communication handicaps impede various basic and more sophisticated knowledge processing activities.

Acknowledgement

We thank Anne-Wil Harzing, Cristina Gibson and Mary Maloney for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

References (131)

  • A. Klitmøller et al.

    When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media richness, cultural difference and language commonality

    Journal of World Business

    (2013)
  • A. König et al.

    Primary or complex? Towards a theory of metaphorical strategy communication in MNCs

    Journal of World Business

    (2017)
  • K. Lagerström et al.

    Creating and sharing knowledge within a transnational team—The development of a global business system

    Journal of World Business

    (2003)
  • J. Lauring et al.

    Corporate language-based communication avoidance in MNCs: A multi-sited ethnography approach

    Journal of World Business

    (2015)
  • K. Mäkelä et al.

    Interpersonal similarity as a driver of knowledge sharing within multinational corporations

    International Business Review

    (2007)
  • T.B. Neeley et al.

    The (un)hidden turmoil of language in global collaboration

    Organizational Dynamics

    (2012)
  • N. Nurmi et al.

    The emotional benefits and performance costs of building a psychologically safe language climate in MNCs

    Journal of World Business

    (2020)
  • V. Peltokorpi et al.

    Corporate language proficiency in reverse knowledge transfer: A moderated mediation model of shared vision and communication frequency

    Journal of World Business

    (2017)
  • F. Ahmad

    Knowledge sharing in a non-native language context: Challenges and strategies

    Journal of Information Science

    (2018)
  • F. Ahmad et al.

    False foe? When and how code switching practices can support knowledge sharing in multinational corporations

    Journal of International Management

    (2019)
  • F. Ahmad et al.

    Language clustering and knowledge sharing in multilingual organizations: A social perspective on language

    Journal of Information Science

    (2015)
  • A. Akmajian et al.

    Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication

    (2001)
  • P. Almeida et al.

    Are firms superior to alliances and markets? An empirical test of cross-border knowledge building

    Organization Science

    (2002)
  • J. Backmann et al.

    Cultural gap bridging in multinational teams

    Journal of International Business Studies

    (2020)
  • P. Bansal et al.

    Publishing in AMJ – part 7: What’s different about qualitative research?

    Academy of Management Journal

    (2012)
  • W. Barner-Rasmussen et al.

    Cultural and language skills as resources for boundary spanning within the MNC

    Journal of International Business Studies

    (2014)
  • B.A. Bechky

    Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor

    Organization Science

    (2003)
  • K. Behfar et al.

    Perspective-discovery within validation logic: Deliberately surfacing, complementing, and substituting abductive reasoning in hypothetico-deductive inquiry

    Organization Science

    (2018)
  • M. Boussebaa et al.

    Englishization, identity regulation and imperialism

    Organization Studies

    (2017)
  • D.P. Brandon et al.

    Transactive memory systems in organizations: Matching tasks, expertise, and people

    Organization Science

    (2004)
  • M.Y. Brannen

    When Mickey loses face: Recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness

    Academy of Management Review

    (2004)
  • M.Y. Brannen et al.

    Introduction

  • M.Y. Brannen et al.

    The multifaceted role of language in international business: Unpacking the forms, functions and features of a critical challenge in MNC theory and performance

    Journal of International Business Studies

    (2014)
  • P.R. Carlile

    Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries

    Organization Science

    (2004)
  • S. Chen et al.

    The importance of language in global teams: A linguistic perspective

    Management International Review

    (2006)
  • S.D. Cook et al.

    Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing

    Organization Science

    (1999)
  • K.B. Dahlin et al.

    Team diversity and information use

    Academy of Management Journal

    (2005)
  • R. Dirven et al.

    Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics

    (2004)
  • O. Dotan-Eliaz et al.

    Multilingual Groups: Effects of linguistic ostracism on felt rejection and anger, coworker attraction, perceived team potency, and creative performance

    Basic and Applied Social Psychology

    (2009)
  • B. Du-Babcock et al.

    Turn-taking behavior and topic management strategies of Chinese and Japanese business professionals: A comparison of intercultural group communication

  • P.C. Earley et al.

    Multinational work teams: A new perspective

    (2002)
  • K.M. Eisenhardt

    Building theories from case study research

    Academy of Management Review

    (1989)
  • K.M. Eisenhardt et al.

    Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges

    Academy of Management Journal

    (2007)
  • A.J. Feely et al.

    Language management in multinational companies

    Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal

    (2003)
  • J. Fiset et al.

    Mind your language: The effects of linguistic ostracism on interpersonal work behaviors

    Journal of Management

    (2019)
  • N.J. Foss et al.

    Microfoundations in international management research: The case of knowledge sharing in multinational corporations

    Journal of International Business Studies

    (2019)
  • M. Fujio

    Silence during intercultural communication: A case study

    Corporate Communications: An International Journal

    (2004)
  • J.R. Galbraith

    Designing complex organizations

    (1973)
  • S.M. Gass et al.

    Miscommunication in nonnative speaker discourse

  • C.B. Gibson

    From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: Cycles of collective cognition in work groups

    Journal of Organizational Behavior

    (2001)
  • Cited by (30)

    • Discontinuity of required oral and literacy skills across job roles in achieving high work performance: An fsQCA approach

      2023, International Business Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      Differences in the extensiveness of English usage may make a difference in required levels of oral skill and literacy skill between job roles. Fourth, communication in any language is not independent of a communication context (Aichhorn & Puck, 2017a; Karhunen et al., 2018; Tenzer, Pudelko, & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2021). Recent studies have argued that linguistic competence (e.g., lexical and syntactic proficiency) does not necessarily ensure appropriate usage of language in a specific context (Karhunen et al., 2018; Kassis-Henderson, 2005; Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta, 2011).

    • Using the Gioia Methodology in international business and entrepreneurship research

      2023, International Business Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      For example, Niittymies (2020) provides additional quotes that support each of the 2nd-order themes in the Appendix. A further example is that of Tenzer et al. (2021). In the online supplementary materials, the authors make available a table with further quotations supporting their propositions.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text