Linguistic barriers and bridges: constructing social capital in ethnically diverse low-skill workplaces

Abstract

The influence of language on social capital in low-skill and ethnically diverse workplaces has thus far received very limited attention within the sociology of work. As the ethnically diverse workplace is an important social space for the construction of social relations bridging different social groups, the sociology of work needs to develop a better understanding of the way in which linguistic diversity influences the formation of social capital (i.e. resources such as the trust and reciprocity inherent in social relations in such workplaces). Drawing on theories about intergroup contact and intercultural communication, this article analyses interviews with 31 employees from two highly ethnically diverse Danish workplaces. The article shows how linguistic barriers such as different levels of majority language competence and their consequent misunderstandings breed mistrust and hostility, while communication related to collaboration and ‘small talk’ may provide linguistic bridges to social capital formation.

Keywords

communication contact ethnic diversity language linguistic barriers linguistic bridges small talk social capital trust workplace

Introduction

Within the sociology of work and immigration a focus is growing on the way in which the level of host country language fluency influences immigrants’ access to jobs (Liversage, 2009), wages (Ebner and Helbling, 2016) and careers (Deeb and Bauder, 2015). A number of analyses point to host country language competence as one of several factors influencing immigrants’ and ethnic minority workers’ access to new connections, social networks and opportunities (Morosanu, 2016; Ryan, 2011; Temple, 2010; Vershinina et al., 2011). Other studies pinpoint verbal and non-verbal communication as a factor in forms of racial discrimination denying minority workers such access (Harris and Ogbonna, 2016; Hebl et al., 2008; Thomas and Plaut, 2008; Van Laer and Janssens, 2011). Nonetheless, research has paid limited attention to the way in which language influences the formation of social capital, i.e. resources such as trust and reciprocal services embedded in social networks (Putnam, 2007), in low-skill workplaces employing many non-western ethnic minority workers.

Research indicates that the workplace is an important social space for the formation of social capital across racial and ethnic lines (Estlund, 2003), as well as for interethnic social trust and friendship formation (De Souza Briggs, 2007; Kokkonen et al., 2014a, 2014b; Mizrachi et al., 2007; Rydgren et al., 2013). However, other studies find that workplace ethnic diversity is associated with weaker social integration (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998), lower trust (Kramer, 2010), more conflicts (Jehn and Greer, 2013) and higher turnover (Hur, 2013). One likely explanation for this discrepancy may lie in such studies typically leaving the linguistic component out of the equation, linking ethnic diversity to social capital. This omission is unfortunate, given that the impact of ethnic and racial diversity on social capital is likely to differ according to whether such workplace diversity stems from the presence of either many immigrants with weak host country language competencies or many second- and third-generation bilingual ethnic minority workers who are fluent in the dominant language.

This article elucidates the role that language plays in ethnically and linguistically diverse low-skill workplaces in relation to the formation of social capital. It draws on both intergroup contact theory (Lemmer and Wagner, 2015; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2011) and theory about intercultural communication concerning verbal and non-verbal interaction between people from different cultures (Jandt, 2010; Scollon et al., 2012; Spencer-Oatey, 2008) – the latter type of theory recently picked up by business communication researchers (Cohen et al., 2015; Lauring, 2011). However, such research concentrates mainly on communication among executives and experts, adding little knowledge to the impact of language on social capital among workers in low-skill ethnically diverse workplaces.

The questions that this article seeks to answer are, firstly, whether (and, if so, how) different levels of majority language competence establish linguistic barriers that engender mistrust and hostility. Secondly, it seeks to discover whether (and, if so, how) communication and collaboration may, under certain circumstances – despite such barriers – provide linguistic bridges to social capital formation across majority and minority ethnic groups. The empirical material consists of interviews with workers in two highly ethnically diverse Danish workplaces. One is a municipal parking control department employing many non-western immigrants, some with a relatively poor command of Danish. The other is a supermarket employing many descendants of non-western immigrants – employees who mostly speak excellent Danish.

Ethnic diversity at work, social capital and intergroup contact

This article understands ethnicity as a socially constructed category based on cultural attachment, linguistic heritage, kinship and/or some physical traits (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007). The concept overlaps with race, i.e. the idea of a common genetic ancestry, based on perceived physical similarities (Morning, 2012: 242). However, ethnicity will be the primary focus for highlighting cultural and linguistic characteristics that influence communication (Gudykunst, 2004: 81). To operationalize Putnam’s (2007) concept of social capital, i.e. trust and reciprocal services embedded in social relations, the article will also draw on Lin’s distinction between social capital’s invoking either instrumental actions (gaining resources) or expressive actions (maintaining resources) (2001: 45–6). In the latter case, expected returns from social capital include receiving personal support (see Van Der Gaag et al., 2008: 38), i.e. sympathizing and empathizing – where, often, ‘the act of communicating serves as both means and goal’ (Lin, 2001: 46). More specifically, the article will concentrate on interethnic social capital in the form of communications of sympathy, empathy, trust and helpfulness across ethnic groups, as well as related practical acts.

Workplaces are crucial focal points for the study of the impact of ethnic diversity on social capital for the following three reasons. Firstly, the labour market is less ethnically segregated than neighbourhoods (Ellis et al., 2004). Secondly, research indicates that working together in racially and ethnically diverse workplaces promotes ‘interpersonal ties across racial lines’ (Estlund, 2003: 83; see also McPherson et al., 2001: 432), inter-ethnic friendships (De Souza Briggs, 2007; Kokkonen et al., 2014a; Rydgren et al., 2013) and social trust (Kokkonen et al., 2014b; Mizrachi et al., 2007). Thirdly, the workplace is often ‘where migrants set about forming weak ties’ with natives (Ryan, 2011: 719; see also Raghuram et al., 2010; Ryan, 2007).

Such research findings are in line with intergroup contact theory, which argues that interactions between members of different ethnic or racial groups – often in the workplace – may lead to a mutual reduction of prejudice (Allport, 1954; Brophy, 1945; Kephart, 1957) and enhance intergroup trust and formation of interethnic friendships and networks (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2011: 164–7). According to American social psychologist Gordon W Allport (1954), four key conditions need fulfilling for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice: equal status in the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and support from authorities, law or custom. Contact must occur within ‘structurally constraining interaction spaces’ such as workplaces (Rydgren et al., 2013), consuming time to produce its effects (Pettigrew, 1998: 75–7).

An empirical challenge to the assumption that workplaces are important sites for intergroup contact relates to labour market trends that make work more precarious (Kalleberg, 2011). If workers change jobs more often, need to hold more jobs to survive or work from home, their chances for frequent and stable collaboration and communication with their colleagues are reduced. A theoretical weakness of contact theory lies in its paying very limited attention to the importance of communication and language. This neglect of language is regrettable, as ‘regular communication’ and ‘an understanding that develops over repeated interactions’ is required for building knowledge-based trust (Lewicki and Bunker, 1996: 121; see also Van Der Meer and Tolsma, 2014: 464).

Moreover, lack of command of the dominant language, for example among marginalized immigrant women (Liversage, 2009), or failure to produce dominant linguistic pronunciation in relation to accent (Nath, 2011) or dialect (Eustace, 2012), may lead to labour market exclusion and/or feelings of insecurity, subordination and stigma. Therefore, analysing how language comes into play in the formation of social capital is highly important, particularly in ethnically diverse low-skill workplaces: research consistently finds that less educated persons are more likely to keep ‘an ethnic distance’ and be less tolerant of ethnic minorities than those with more education (Carvacho et al., 2013; Hello et al., 2006).

Intercultural communication, barriers and bridges

Research on intercultural communication studies both verbal and non-verbal aspects of communication (e.g. vocabulary, syntax, pronunciation, body language, gestures) in an intercultural context (Gudykunst, 2005; Jandt, 2010; Scollon et al., 2012). Linguistic barriers, i.e. miscommunication and misunderstandings due to differential second language competence leading to mistrust and hostility, constitute important research areas (Henderson, 2010; Spencer-Oatey, 2008), as do linguistic bridges, i.e. efficient intercultural communication leading to the establishment of social relations and social capital (Gudykunst, 2004).

Linguistic barriers

Linguistic barriers to successful communication – such as misunderstandings, stereotypes and erroneous attribution of motives – fall into two broad categories. One type of barrier relates to a situation in which one interlocutor (e.g. an immigrant) is not yet fluent in the dominant language of the host country, and thus misinterprets the message due to difficulties in understanding accent, pronunciation, choice of vocabulary or grammar (Gudykunst, 2004: 29). These barriers typically also work the other way around, with native speakers having trouble understanding immigrants. A second type of barrier works at the discourse level, that of cultural regularities and conventions relating to appropriate communication, such as the use of greetings, orders, requests or apologies (Scollon et al., 2012). Both types of barriers may lead to uncertainty and anxiety (Gudykunst, 2004), mistrust (Henderson, 2010) and damaged social relations (Cohen and Henderson, 2012).

Culture often intersects with group memberships based on categories such as ethnicity and social class (Gudykunst, 2005; Scollon et al., 2012). Ethnic identity often comes with a particular linguistic heritage (Cornell and Hartmann, 2007; Temple, 2010), and speaking a particular language ‘is a major way we mark boundaries between our ethnic group and strangers’ ethnic groups’ (Gudykunst, 2004: 91). Language also facilitates social cohesion among ethnic group members (Gudykunst, 2004: 92). Thus, immigrants not fluent in the dominant host country language may feel more secure speaking their native language. However, if they do so in the presence of members of another (dominant) ethnic group, this practice may alienate these third-party listeners (and vice versa).

Such mutual linguistic alienation likely occurs more often in low-skill than in high-skill workplaces. Highly skilled immigrants and natives are typically more fluent in a (common) second language such as English. Moreover, educational level may affect patterns of communication. Bernstein’s (1973) classic analysis shows that ‘middle-class’ and ‘working-class’ language differ. Middle-class language tends to use an ‘elaborate code’ involving verbal explicitness (i.e. direct messages not relying on shared meanings), while working-class language tends to use a ‘restricted code’ (i.e. using metaphors and indirectness, not being verbally elaborate and relying on shared identities) (Bernstein, 1973; Gudykunst, 2004: 107–8). Although the validity and relevance of Bernstein’s analysis are contested (Jones, 2013; Pennycook, 2015), some socio-linguists argue that class (linked to social inequalities in education and income) continues to matter to language (Block, 2014; Duchêne et al., 2013; Vandrick, 2014). Therefore, intercultural and interethnic communication likely constitutes a greater challenge in low-skill than in high-skill workplaces.

Linguistic bridges

Communication barriers in linguistically diverse workplaces may impede the establishment of social capital. Nonetheless, social contact in ‘structurally constraining interaction spaces’ (Rydgren et al., 2013) may lead to the establishment of linguistic bridges, i.e. forms of efficient intercultural communication that help establish social relations and social capital. Two of those bridges are (i) successful intercultural ‘work talk’ (i.e. talk oriented towards task completion) and (ii) successful intercultural ‘social talk’ (i.e. ‘small talk’ oriented towards maintaining or enhancing social relations).

For successful intercultural ‘work talk’, research indicates that to promote task completion some native speakers try to adapt their language to make it more understandable to non-native speakers (Cohen and Henderson, 2012; Gallois et al., 2005; Gudykunst, 2004: 216–30). These native speakers more clearly pronounce words, adapt their vocabulary and use an ‘extended code’, i.e. explicate the meaning of the message they intend to convey (Henderson, 2010: 336). Moreover, they may also use words from the other party’s language or in other ways attempt to express themselves in that party’s language (Mizrachi et al., 2007: 156), as doing so ‘guards against tribal behaviour and helps to build up emotional solidarity’ (Henderson, 2010: 372).

A second critical linguistic bridge in the workplace is ‘small talk’ and ‘social talk’, i.e. communication with a primarily social or affective meaning, taking place during breaks, at the start or end of the workday, or interspersed with work talk (Holmes and Stubbe, 2015: 89–90). Although the topics covered in small talk may appear innocuous – the weather, sports, holiday plans – such communication is often a means of negotiating interpersonal relationships at work. Small talk has ‘a unique bridging potential – relationally and interactionally’ (Coupland et al., 1992: 226) – and often ‘expresses and reinforces solidarity’ (Holmes and Stubbe, 2015: 107) among work colleagues.

Small talk also often precedes the more in-depth social talk that reveals personal issues about job-related grievances or ambitions, family matters, political orientation, etc. Social talk is important because self-disclosure may further the construction of social relations to (ethnic) ‘strangers’ (Gudykunst, 2004: 314). Yet small talk and social talk often constitute challenges to individuals not speaking the dominant language or not knowing the cultural conventions for conducting them (Deeb and Bauder, 2015: 56; Henderson, 2010: 365). Nonetheless, the network-constructing potential of small talk and social talk has been established in recent research on intercultural communication, showing that interethnic social capital is often built through social rather than work talk (Charles, 2007: 272; Deeb and Bauder, 2015: 59).

Research design and methods

The analyses in this article are based on empirical data consisting of interviews and observations among employees in two Danish ethnically diverse low-skill workplaces. In Denmark ethnic diversity usually refers to the presence in a school, neighbourhood or workplace of ethnic minority non-western immigrants and their descendants. In this study, ‘ethnic minorities’ thus refers to this group of people, i.e. non-western immigrants who have settled in Denmark to live and work, and their descendants (the ‘second or third generation’). The five most common countries of origin for such ethnic minorities in Denmark, listed in descending order of numbers, are Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan.¹

The workplaces selected were a supermarket service department staffing the cash registers and a municipal parking administration department employing street-level patrolling traffic wardens. The workplaces were selected for interviewing according to two criteria. Firstly, they had to be highly diverse in terms of having a large share of minority ethnic employees (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998: 81–2). Secondly, given the focus in intergroup contact theory on the importance of collaboration towards a common goal (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2011), the workplaces had to vary in terms of cooperation among the employees. Thus, as each checkout clerk works alone at the cash register, very limited cooperation was assumed in the supermarket, while more cooperation was assumed in the parking department, as the traffic wardens (in principle) were supposed to patrol the streets with a partner. Observations and interviews later revealed that in practice these assumptions about different levels of collaboration had to be nuanced. Thirdly, these workplaces had to employ low-skilled workers.

In these two workplaces, a total of 31 semi-structured interviews of 40–60 minutes were conducted from May through November 2012. The respondents were a representative sample of the employees in each workplace. In the supermarket, 14 interviews were conducted with seven ethnic Danish and seven minority ethnic workers. In the parking department, 17 interviews were completed with nine ethnic Danish, one western immigrant and seven ethnic minority traffic wardens. A distinction between immigrant generations was not part of the sampling strategy, although the research later revealed that most of the minority workers in the parking department were immigrants, with some far from fluent in Danish, and that none of those interviewed had immigrated to Denmark before the age of 20. In contrast, in the supermarket, only one of the interviewed ethnic minority workers had immigrated to Denmark as an adult; all the others were born in Denmark or had arrived as small children. Most of these workers were fluent in Danish and bilingual to some extent.

In each workplace the interviews were conducted as part of a short stay of about one week, providing an opportunity for talking informally with the employees, observing their work and interactions, and participating in some meetings. In each department three managers were also interviewed (in total, six of the 31 interviews). All interviews were conducted in Danish. To increase trust in the interview situation and to obtain reliable information, the inquiry initially pursued a loosely structured ‘free-wheeling’ questioning strategy that gradually became more structured (Adler and Adler, 2002; Svendsen, 2006). Firstly, the interviewees were asked to describe their work tasks, their experiences in collaborating with colleagues and social relations at the workplace in general – the aim being to generate data on social capital indirectly. Later in the interview they were asked directly about trust (‘to what extent do you trust your colleagues?’) and reciprocity (‘to what extent do you receive help from your colleagues?’). They were also asked about their best and worst collaboration experiences, and their experiences with good and bad colleagues, and whether ethnicity mattered to those experiences.

All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded with the program NVivo 10 (release number 10.0.638.0). To ensure anonymity and confidentiality, all names of the interviewees have been changed. The subsequent data analyses were inspired by concepts of social capital such as ‘expressive actions’ (Lin, 2001) and ‘personal’ (Van Der Gaag et al., 2008) and emotional support. The analyses therefore focused on identifying expressions of empathy or sympathy, trust and helping behaviour, e.g. inter-collegial sharing of advice about work or family conflicts (Van Der Gaag et al., 2008: 46–7).

Collaboration and communication around the cash registers

The first case was a large supermarket, more specifically the service department, with approximately 200 employees primarily staffing the cash registers. Slightly more women than men worked in this department, and most were in their late teens or early twenties. As in many other parts of the retail sector, there was high employee turnover. The supermarket had won several awards for its recruitment strategies promoting ethnic diversity – strategies that were apparently relatively successful, also in the sense that most of the interviewed employees expressed both interethnic trust and support.

Work-related communication

A young male ethnic Danish supervisor, Claus, recollected his appreciation of collaborating with and his respect for a female ethnic minority supervisor in the ‘service office’ (a small office at one end of the row of cash registers for overseeing work at the checkout counters):

She had a very good grasp of details. Furthermore, she was studying law, making it easier for her to reply if one had any kind of question. She was also very good at praising and criticizing if need be. I think that she was very capable. [Age 19, 4 years of experience]

Claus was not the only employee to recount such an experience. A female ethnic Danish checkout operator, Lise, reported that her mother and brothers were very hostile towards ethnic minorities. However, having worked for the supermarket for a number of years, she said:

In my family, it’s only me who likes them [ethnic minorities] because I work with them. I think they are so nice. Somebody like Mohammad, he does a lot to help me. So I can’t just say I hate you … although you help me. [Age 18, 1.5 years of experience]

The help that Mohammad had provided consisted, for example, of being willing at short notice to replace Lise on a shift. Lise had also learned some Turkish words both at work and through a Facebook group set up by the department managers. While the group was to promote work-related communication, e.g. for shift swapping, small talk frequently took place. Lise said: ‘So when we sit in our small group on Facebook, we just sit and write Turkish and such. It’s really strange.’ Despite some ambivalent feelings, the use of those ‘strange’ words had become part of Lises’ sympathy- and trust-based interactions with some of her minority colleagues.

A final example of the impact of work-related communication on social relations comes from Aydemir, a male ethnic minority employee who now worked in the kiosk but was previously in customer service. Answering the question about his best collaboration experience, he mentioned communication with his customer service colleagues:

It was in customer service if you were stuck with an angry customer. Then we just swapped customers and said: ‘I stop – now you take over’. Then we passed on the customer and solved the problem. [Age 25, 5 years of experience]

Aydemir said that he found it ‘cool’ working in a multi-ethnic workplace. Like many other employees he referred to ‘a good atmosphere’ in the workplace. Neither he nor others would likely have referred to ‘a good atmosphere’ had they not trusted and felt trusted by their colleagues.

Small talk and social talk

Customer service was a place where interethnic communication relatively often took place and where work talk and social talk were intertwined. Anita, a female ethnic Danish employee, said that she had developed ties to both ethnic Danish and minority ethnic colleagues via work in customer service and that work there often opened a space for the sharing of feelings:

It’s because those are the ones I’m standing with a lot … You create some closer ties. You know more about each other. I have colleagues where I know nothing about what they do when they go home. Often when we talk, we talk privately, and I can say, like: ‘You know what? I’m not sulking or anything, I’ve just had a really bad morning. In half an hour I’m on again.’ [Age 50, 5 years of experience]

When the service workers relaxed together around a tiny table in a small coffee break room – mentioned in many interviews as a contrast to the solitary, repetitive work behind the cash registers – communication and small talk also promoted personal support. One female ethnic minority checkout operator, Amina, reported:

Sometimes it can be stressful to work behind the checkout counter … especially if we are busy with a lot of customers and lifting a lot of heavy goods. So the 30 minutes we spend in the coffee break room help a lot, and we become more relaxed … also chatting with each other in a nice social atmosphere, getting to know each other. Then time runs quickly, and one has a little more energy to sit behind the cash register again. [Age 53, 4 years of experience]

The bolt-hole coffee break room was indeed a bit of a melting pot for checkout operators on their break, i.e. a social space where employees mixed across ethnicity, age and gender. Hence, the employees’ informal interaction and small talking while relaxing together, away from the humdrum tasks at the cash register, promoted interethnic personal support.

Conflicts with linguistic dimensions

Nonetheless, conflicts with an ethnic and linguistic dimension also existed in the supermarket. One conflict arose because some of the female ethnic Danish checkout operators perceived some of the young (ages 16–17) ethnic minority men in the internal service subsection – who brought sales receipts rolls, change, etc. to the cash registers – as ‘sluggish’. They also criticized these young men for not living up to ‘Danish language only’ company rules. These checkout operators also criticized a female ethnic minority manager for not taking complaints about these service workers sufficiently seriously and accused her of not doing so because some of these young men were her relatives. One female ethnic Danish checkout operator, Helle, also criticized this manager for not living up to the company’s ‘Danish only’ rules.

A lot of people are very uncomfortable if one is in the coffee break room with two who speak Turkish, and one sits there alone. Our boss, Rula, says that they aren’t allowed to do that but even she speaks Turkish once in a while. She shouldn’t. [Age 20, 2 years of experience]

Indeed, the ethnic minority manager Rula being criticized expressed keen awareness of the potentially alienating effects of speaking a (minority) ethnic language that few of the Danish employees would understand:

I’m thinking a lot about not speaking my own language. I also have these youngsters who may talk a bit of slang, puh. Well, then, I can stop them and say: ‘Listen that jalla-lingo belongs at home, and here at [the supermarket] we speak Danish’. [Age 29, 13 years of experience]

The formation of interethnic social capital clearly took place in this workplace, despite the solitary nature of the primary work tasks, i.e. work behind the cash registers. This effect was likely due to work-related and, in particular, small and social talk occurring ‘around’ the cash registers. Work-related communication and (especially) small talk and social talk functioned as linguistic bridges to personal support across ethnic groups.

Nonetheless, linguistic barriers also existed – particularly around ethnic minorities occasionally speaking their minority language – creating mistrust between certain groups of employees. Moreover, the high turnover and changing hours in this retail sector workplace – with, typically, a great many young employees working part-time – may have impeded the formation of stronger forms of interethnic social capital linked to the formation of interethnic friendships.

Traffic wardens, factionalism and interethnic (mis-)trust

The second case, the municipal parking department in a large Danish city, was a workplace where collaboration among the employees constituted an integral part of the job to a higher extent than among the checkout operators. The traffic wardens typically worked in pairs (although in practice they often split up on the street) and collaboration consisted, for example, of helping one another reach the correct parking regulations decision on the street, or standing by if a driver became verbally or physically aggressive. The department had a long pre-history within the municipal administration and had only gradually become more ethnically diverse over the last 10 years. More than 40 per cent of the 120 employees belonged to ethnic minority groups, and a large share of these were relatively recent non-western immigrants or refugees.

Interviews quickly revealed that many employees mistrusted their colleagues and felt that they did not obtain due help or support from them. Interviews with both managers and employees indicated that two recent changes in the workplace had contributed to fuelling greater mistrust among colleagues. Firstly, output demands for the entire department, i.e. the number of fines imposed on illegally parked cars, had been raised during recent years. Secondly, for ethical and political reasons management had actively been seeking to provide job opportunities to members of marginalized ethnic minority groups. However, interviews with managers revealed that hiring workers among ethnic minorities had also been part of management’s efforts to alter what they had perceived of as a relatively lax work ethic prevailing among some of the ethnic Danish employees. Hiring ethnic minorities as part of these efforts also created the potential for interethnic tensions and mistrust.

Work-related communication

The increasing ethnic diversity in the department had also made respect for the company language policy (‘Danish only’) a contentious matter. As with the supermarket, in this department some ethnic Danish employees also criticized ethnic minority colleagues for speaking a foreign language and criticized management for failing to uphold the language policy. The ethnic Danish shop steward was one of those annoyed with this situation:

First I say, please don’t, I have a duty to report it [to management] … I can’t be bothered to sit up there [in the canteen] and listen to … is it me that they are laughing at or what? I can’t be bothered, and we have this policy. Some have been mad at me for half a year, but now we speak again. Somehow it’s my duty as a shop steward to make sure that things go by the rules. [Age 57, 8 years of experience]

Several ethnic Danish employees said that they found it a problem, especially on the street, if a colleague spoke a second (foreign) language to a driver because they as listeners would not know what was said. This lack of understanding might, for example, become a problem in relation to witnessing a conversation during which the driver becomes violent. Concerning phone conversations with ethnic minority colleagues, a female ethnic Danish traffic warden added:

You call and tell them that you just passed by a fight and don’t go there. And the feedback you get shows that the person didn’t understand a bloody thing from what you said. That’s not really good. [Age 62, 10 years of experience]

Among ethnic minority workers, very few mentioned their own level of Danish as a problem. However, some hinted at linguistic challenges that might affect their work and especially their social relationships with their colleagues. One ethnic minority traffic warden, Hamza, spoke about his troubles understanding the banter and thus trusting his colleagues in another workplace, where he worked not long after arriving in Denmark:

I couldn’t participate in any of the conversations because I didn’t speak the language. One day I said: ‘OK, now it’s time to knock off, I want to go home’. Then somebody said to me: ‘Well, are you running away?’. And I say, what is that supposed to mean? I took it like, ‘are you running away?!’ as an accusation. Later I understood that it’s just a way of saying, ‘are you leaving now?’. [Age 34, 4 years of experience]

An ethnic minority traffic warden, Ismael, who had been in the Danish labour market for many years, said that he often assisted other immigrants in the parking department in grasping both the explicit meaning of criticism, and/or the implicit meaning of the banter of their Danish colleagues:

Those who don’t speak the language, that’s a problem. They often come and ask me: ‘Now he said this to me, he was pissed off’. I say: ‘There is nothing to be angry about, he meant no ill, it’s just such and such’. So I explain it to him in another way, and then he calms down. [Age 59, 6 years of experience]

Several ethnic minority employees sensed hostility and negativity from some of their (older) ethnic Danish colleagues if they imposed (too) many fines. One ethnic minority traffic warden, Sulejman, recalled: ‘I’ve been called “heartless”, sometimes I’m “so sick in the head”; sometimes I’m called an idiot because I impose so many administrative fees. Sometimes I’m just a “workhorse”’. Although perhaps those labels were just dry banter, Sulejman understood them as literal criticism of his person and his work. The consequences were a sense of lack of trust and lack of helpfulness.

Small talk and social talk

Communicative difficulties also restrained the ability of small talk and social talk to function as linguistic bridges, furthering the construction of interethnic social capital. One female ethnic Danish traffic warden, Britta, said about a male ethnic minority colleague:

He speaks Danish very poorly. We both drive a motorcycle, and he really wants to talk about those things. Sometimes I just give up because it takes incredible effort to understand and listen. Sometimes I just refrain from continuing the conversation or from asking questions because it doesn’t make sense. [Age 26, 4 years of experience]

Another female Danish traffic warden, Mette, also expressed frustration at the extent to which foreign languages were spoken in the canteen in the parking department:

I feel it’s sad that some sit and speak foreign languages in small groups. It can easily be misunderstood as if they talk about others […] I think it often ends up being a little factious. [Age 47, 1 year of experience]

Despite the ethnic factionalism among the traffic wardens, in this workplace collaboration over time between individuals belonging to different ethnic groups had contributed to the construction of interethnic social capital. One ethnic minority traffic warden, Zaïd, said that it took several years before he understood and felt accepted by his ethnic Danish colleagues – a period during which he often had to endure harsh remarks and racist jokes. However, now he felt part of a small family characterized by intimate small talk and reciprocal support:

We collaborate a lot, and it works really well. Especially here after, well, like 5–6 years. Some of those help me […] Every time we come to work, we greet each other and we talk, and maybe we joke around. It’s routine, it’s like a small family meeting all the time […] Maybe sometimes we misunderstand things, humour, or something culture-specific. But when you understand it, I think it helps with a lot of things. [Age 44, 5 years of experience]

Interviews indicated that similarity in age and length of employment attenuated differences linked to ethnicity. Shared interests, experiences and empathy were the engines driving ethnically mixed (ethnic Danish and ethnic minority) networks, in which members assisted one another professionally and personally. One female ethnic minority traffic warden, Lael, provided an example:

I have some very good colleagues. We really get along well. Not in everything, but we sit at the same table, chat and we have a comfy time at lunch. When we’re at the same post we make sure to make the rounds together […] I’ve had a lot of problems with my husband, so I’ve had some really bad days coming to work. But two of my colleagues have really supported me, trying to tell me what to do or what to say. [Age 44, 6 years of experience]

Overall, in this particular workplace, perceptions of threats and status conflicts impeded the construction of interethnic social capital, especially between older ethnic Danish employees and younger ethnic minority employees. Management aspirations to raise productivity through the hiring of ethnic minorities fuelled dislike and mistrust between some of the ethnic Danish and some of the ethnic minority employees. Intertwined with this driver of conflict, linguistic barriers linked to different levels of majority language competence and cultural conventions contributed to the mistrust and hostility between these groups. Even so, collaboration and interaction over time led some to linguistic bridging and hence to even trust and reciprocity between some members of these groups – especially among persons of the same age with overlapping life experiences.

Conclusion and implications

This study leads to the conclusion that in low-skill workplaces characterized by linguistic diversity, communication problems have a small impact on the completion of work tasks but a large impact on social relations. Large disparities in the employees’ levels of majority language competence tend to establish linguistic barriers that engender mistrust and hostility among both ethnic majorities and ethnic minorities. The lack of understanding at both the concrete linguistic competency level and that of cultural conventions impedes the interpretation of the intentions of other parties, with mistrust, neglect and hostility as the results. Despite such barriers, communication and collaboration may provide linguistic bridges to interethnic social capital formation. Small talk and social talk are two concrete linguistic manifestations of such bridges. Nonetheless, such bridges are most easily established if the parties have overlapping demographic characteristics such as age, gender or familial situation (Ryan, 2011: 721).

Given these conclusions, the first contribution of this study is to the literature on diversity at work. Unfortunately, communication barriers receive marginal attention in the literature on diversity at work (see, for example, Roberson, 2013). The literature on intercultural communication analyses some of the communication problems arising in ethnically diverse workplaces (Gudykunst, 2004; Scollon et al., 2012). However, that literature often takes as its point of departure highly skilled workers who may be proficient in a second language (typically English) and whose misunderstandings therefore occur at the level of cultural conventions (Cohen and Henderson, 2012; Henderson, 2010). Business communication research generally gives limited attention to low-skill workplaces where miscommunication relates to both lack of basic majority language competencies (pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar) and different cultural communication conventions.

The second contribution of this study relates to the literature on intergroup contact (Lemmer and Wagner, 2015; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2011) and social capital in the workplace (Morosanu, 2016; Ryan, 2011). Both of these areas of research pay rather scant attention to the linguistic characteristics of majority and minority groups interacting in the workplace (Deeb and Bauder, 2015 is an exception). A comparison of two workplaces in this study shows that the less communication barriers matter, the greater the chance for the formation of interethnic social capital. Higher levels of trust and reciprocity in the supermarket were likely related to lower linguistic barriers present in that workplace because the ethnic minority workers there were more fluent in Danish than the immigrants working in the parking department. However, the analysis also showed that the formation of interethnic social capital is a process requiring an understanding of other factors such as the relationship between management and employees and potential conflicts between management and specific ethnic majority or minority subgroups of employees (MacKenzie and Forde, 2009). Moreover, the time dimension is also important. Hence, the mistrust entailed by linguistic barriers appears, at least among some individuals, to diminish over time as ethnic minorities (especially first-generation immigrants) gain greater linguistic proficiency and confidence, and as natives become more accustomed to their manner of communicating (e.g. accent, vocabulary and syntax).

In terms of implications for practice, the role of management is important. Management defines the language rules of the workplace and is responsible for implementing them. Thus, management could choose to provide adequate language training for ethnic minority workers with a weak command of the dominant language, as well as providing intercultural communication training for ethnic majority workers, i.e. training them to speak slowly and pronounce clearly, to use an accessible vocabulary, to not take intentions or a common life world for granted, and to follow up messages with questions to ensure that a common understanding has been reached (Cohen and Henderson, 2012). Trade unions also have a role to play. Comparative research has shown that Danish, compared to British, trade unions are relatively cautious when dealing with questions of ethnic inequality and labour market discrimination (Wrench, 2004). Nonetheless, unions everywhere could provide similar intercultural communication training to shop stewards to give them a better understanding of conflicts – and how to avoid them – in ethnically and linguistically diverse workplaces.

This article has sought to open a discussion on the impact of ethnic and linguistic diversity on social capital in low-skill workplaces. Its findings provide knowledge about the way in which communication mediates between skill level, ethnicity and social capital – knowledge valuable to both researchers and practitioners. Most importantly, practitioners’ failure to act on linguistic barriers may easily result in enduring – and unnecessary – mistrust and hostility between ethnic majority and ethnic minority workers.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, which greatly contributed to improving the article. I would also like to thank the editors for their comments and support during the review process. Moreover, I wish to express my gratitude towards Anika Liversage, Anna Ilsøe, Irene Bloemraad, Jonas Felbo-Kolding, Kim Voss, Nanna-Mik-Meyer, Peter May, Philippe Pochet and colleagues at SFI for comments on earlier drafts of this article. I would also like to thank Natalie Reid for professional linguistic advice.

Funding

This research was made possible due to a grant from the Danish Council for Independent Research.

Notes

Frederik Thuesen is a research manager and senior researcher in the Department for Employment and Social Inclusion at SFI – The Danish National Centre for Social Research. He holds an MA in History of Ideas from the University of Aarhus and a PhD in Sociology from the University of Copenhagen. His research interests focus on the sociology of work, immigrants, ethnicity and vulnerable groups in the labour market. He is currently conducting a study of ethnic diversity in the workplace and the dynamics of social capital. He has previously published articles on human rights and ethnic discrimination in the labour market.

References

Adler

(2002) The reluctant respondent. In: Gubrium

Holstein

(eds) Handbook of Interview Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 515–35.

Allport

(1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Bernstein

(1973) Language and socialization. In: Minnis

(ed.) Linguistics at Large. St Albans: Paladin, 225–42.

Block

(2014) Social Class in Applied Linguistics. New York: Routledge.

Brophy

(1945) The luxury of anti-negro prejudice. Public Opinion Quarterly 9(4): 456–66.

Carvacho

Zick

Haye

González

Manzi

Kocik

et al . (2013) On the relation between social class and prejudice: the roles of education, income, and ideological attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology 43(4): 272–85.

Charles

(2007) Language matters in global communication: article based on ORA lecture, October 2006. Journal of Business Communication 44(3): 260–82.

Cohen

Henderson

(2012) Language use in establishing rapport and building relations: implications for international teams and management education. Management & Avenir 5(55): 185–207.

Cohen

Henderson

Lecomte

(2015) Language diversity in management education: towards a multilingual turn. In: Holden

Michailova

Tietze

(eds) The Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management. London: Routledge, 151–60.

10.

Cornell

Hartmann

(2007) Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

11.

Coupland

Robinson

(1992) ‘How are you?’: negotiating phatic communion. Language in Society 21(2): 207–30.

12.

Deeb

Bauder

(2015) Breaking through the glass ceiling: intercultural communication and the career experiences of skilled immigrant managers. In: Ryan

Erel

D’Angelo

(eds) Migrant Capital: Networks, Identities and Strategies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 48–63.

13.

De Souza Briggs

(2007) ‘Some of my best friends are’: interracial friendships, class, and segregation in America. City & Community 6(4): 263–90.

14.

Duchêne

Moyer

Roberts

(eds) (2013) Language, Migration and Social Inequalities: A Critical Sociolinguistic Perspective on Institutions and Work. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

15.

Ebner

Helbling

(2016) Social distance and wage inequalities for immigrants in Switzerland. Work, Employment and Society 30(3): 436–54.

16.

Ellis

Wright

Parks

(2004) Work together, live apart? Geographies of racial and ethnic segregation at home and at work. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(3): 620–37.

17.

Estlund

(2003) Working Together: How Workplace Bonds Strengthen a Diverse Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

18.

Eustace

(2012) Speaking allowed? Workplace regulation of regional dialect. Work, Employment and Society 26(2): 331–48.

19.

Gallois

Ogay

Giles

(2005) Communication accomodation theory. In: Gudykunst

(ed.) Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 121–48.

20.

Gudykunst

(2004) Bridging Differences: Effective Intergroup Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

21.

Gudykunst

(ed.) (2005) Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. London: SAGE.

22.

Harris

Ogbonna

(2016) Ethnic gatekeeping on the shopfloor: a study of bases, motives and approaches. Work, Employment and Society 30(1): 59–76.

23.

Hebl

Madera

King

(2008) Exclusion, avoidance, and social distancing. In: Thomas

(ed.) Diversity Resistance in Organizations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 127–50.

24.

Hello

Scheepers

Sleegers

(2006) Why the more educated are less inclined to keep ethnic distance: an empirical test of four explanations. Ethnic & Racial Studies 29(5): 959–85.

25.

Henderson

(2010) The implications of language boundaries on the development of trust in international management teams. In: Saunders

MNK

Skinner

Dietz

Gillespie

Lewicki

(eds) Organizational Trust: A Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 358–82.

26.

Holmes

Stubbe

(2015) Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. New York: Routledge.

27.

Hur

(2013) Racial diversity, is it a blessing to an organization? Examining its organizational consequences in municipal police departments. International Review of Administrative Sciences 79(1): 149–64.

28.

Jandt

(2010) An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

29.

Jehn

Greer

(2013) Diversity as disagreement: the role of group conflict. In: Roberson

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 179–91.

30.

Jones

(2013) Bernstein’s ‘codes’ and the linguistics of ‘deficit’. Language and Education 27(2): 161–79.

31.

Kalleberg

(2011) Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

32.

Kephart

(1957) Racial Factors and Urban Law Enforcement. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press.

33.

Kokkonen

Esaiasson

Gilljam

(2014a) Diverse workplaces and interethnic friendship formation: a multilevel comparison across 21 OECD countries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41(2): 284–305.

34.

Kokkonen

Esaiasson

Gilljam

(2014b) Migration-based ethnic diversity and social trust: a multilevel analysis of how country, neighbourhood and workplace diversity affects social trust in 22 countries. Scandinavian Political Studies 37(3): 263–300.

35.

Kramer

(2010) Trust barriers in cross-cultural negotiations: a social psychological analysis. In: Saunders

MNK

Skinner

Dietz

Gillespie

Lewicki

(eds) Organizational Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 182–204.

36.

Lauring

(2011) Intercultural organizational communication: the social organizing of interaction in international encounters. Journal of Business Communication 48(3): 231–55.

37.

Lemmer

Wagner

(2015) Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology 45(2): 152–68.

38.

Lewicki

Bunker

(1996) Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In: Kramer

Tyler

(eds) Trust in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 114–39.

39.

Lin

(2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Liversage

(2009) Life below a ‘language threshold’?: stories of Turkish marriage migrant women in Denmark. European Journal of Women’s Studies 16(3): 229–47.

41.

MacKenzie

Forde

(2009) The rhetoric of the ‘good worker’ versus the realities of employers’ use and the experiences of migrant workers. Work, Employment and Society 23(1): 142–59.

42.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

(2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27(1): 415–44.

43.

Mizrachi

Drori

Anspach

(2007) Repertoires of trust: the practice of trust in a multinational organization amid political conflict. American Sociological Review 72(1): 143–65.

44.

Morning

(2012) Race and ethnicity. In: Manza

Arum

Haney

(eds) The Sociology Project: Introducing Sociological Imagination. London: Pearson, 238–64.

45.

Morosanu

(2016) Professional bridges: migrants’ ties with natives and occupational advancement. Sociology 50(2): 349–65.

46.

Nath

(2011) Aesthetic and emotional labour through stigma: national identity management and racial abuse in offshored Indian call centres. Work, Employment and Society 25(4): 709–25.

47.

Pennycook

(2015) Class is out: erasing social class in applied linguistics. D. Block: Social class in applied linguistics. Review essay. Applied Linguistics 36(2): 270–7.

48.

Pettigrew

(1998) Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49(1): 65–85.

49.

Pettigrew

Tropp

(2011) When Groups Meet: The Dynamics of Intergroup Contact. New York and Hove: Psychology Press.

50.

Putnam

(2007) E Pluribus Unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies 30(2): 137–74.

51.

Raghuram

Henry

Bornat

(2010) Difference and distinction? Non-migrant and migrant networks. Sociology 44(4): 623–41.

52.

Roberson

(2013) The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work. New York: Oxford University Press.

53.

Ryan

(2007) Migrant women, social networks and motherhood: the experiences of Irish nurses in Britain. Sociology 41(2): 295–312.

54.

Ryan

(2011) Migrants’ social networks and weak ties: accessing resources and constructing relationships post-migration. The Sociological Review 59(4): 707–24.

55.

Rydgren

Sofi

Hällsten

(2013) Interethnic friendship, trust, and tolerance: findings from two north Iraqi cities. American Journal of Sociology 118(6): 1650–94.

56.

Scollon

Jones

(2012) Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

57.

Spencer-Oatey

(2008) Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London: Continuum.

58.

Svendsen

(2006) Studying social capital in situ: a qualitative approach. Theory & Society 35(1): 39–70.

59.

Temple

(2010) Feeling special: language in the lives of Polish people. The Sociological Review 58(2): 286–304.

60.

Thomas

Plaut

(2008) The many faces of diversity resistance in the workplace. In: Thomas

(ed.) Diversity Resistance in Organizations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1–22.

61.

Van Der Gaag

Snijders

TAB

Flap

(2008) Position generator measures and their relation to other social capital measures. In: Lin

Erickson

(eds) Social Capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27–48.

62.

Van Der Meer

Tolsma

(2014) Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology 40(1): 459–78.

63.

Vandrick

(2014) The role of social class in English language education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 13(2): 85–91.

64.

Van Laer

Janssens

(2011) Ethnic minority professionals’ experiences with subtle discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations 64(9): 1203–27.

65.

Vershinina

Barrett

Meyer

(2011) Forms of capital, intra-ethnic variation and Polish entrepreneurs in Leicester. Work, Employment and Society 25(1): 101–17.

66.

Williams

O’Reilly

CAI

(1998) Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. In: Staw

Cummings

(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 77–140.

67.

Wrench

(2004) Trade union responses to immigrants and ethnic inequality in Denmark and the UK: the context of consensus and conflict. European Journal of Industrial Relations 10(1): 7–30.