Inclusive Language Use in Multicultural Business Organizations: The Effect on Creativity and Performance

Abstract

Few studies have dealt with inclusive language use in multicultural organizations. This is unfortunate because it has been hypothesized that such organizations will be more creative and will perform better than mono-cultural organizations if communication issues are dealt with correctly by managers. In this study, we test the general hypothesis that inclusive language use by managers and employees in formal and informal situations will increase the creativity and performance in multicultural organizations. By use of responses from 676 individuals employed in privately owned multicultural companies, we found that management common language communication was strongly associated with performance but not with creativity. Openness to language diversity among employees, however, had strong relations with both creativity and performance. This indicates that management communication may provide information and a shared identity that can increase the performance of an organization. Yet in order to increase creativity, there is a need to also facilitate inclusive group processes. The findings provide new insights into the theoretical idea that diversity leads to creativity and performance if communication is managed correctly.

Keywords

language use language management multicultural organizations diversity performance creativity common corporate language management communication openness to diversity

Increased internationalization of businesses has made the management of languages in multilingual organizations a growing concern (Ehrenreich, 2010; Wells, 2013). While choosing a common corporate language may solve some problems, still many remain (Born & Peltokorpi, 2010). Thus, predicaments associated with language mainly relate to variations in fluency in common languages and to the use of other languages alongside the common language (Barner-Rasmussen & Aarnio, 2011; Zaidman, 2001). Such differences in skills and practices could make it more difficult for individuals in multilingual organizations to communicate. In relation to this, language diversity, that is, when organizational members hold a variety of different mother tongues which also affects the use of a shared second language (Henderson, 2005), has been found to negatively impact knowledge transfer (Ghoshal & Nohria, 1989; Lagerström & Andersson, 2003; Mäkelä, Kalla, & Piekkari, 2007), global value chain management (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001), international conflict management (Von Glinow, Shapiro, & Brett, 2004), interunit communication intensity (Barner-Rasmussen & Björkman, 2005), perceived trustworthiness between business units (Barner-Rasmussen & Björkman, 2007), mergers (Vaara, Tienari, Piekkari, & Säntti, 2005), joint ventures (Brannen & Salk, 2000), headquarter-subsidiary relations (Gupta, 1987), and global integration in multinational companies (Marschan, Welch, & Welch, 1997).

There could be several reasons for why language diversity seems to affect organizational activities and processes negatively. In organizations hosting many different nationalities, unfamiliar vocabulary, unusual accent, slow speech rhythm, or frequent grammatical mistakes can make it more difficult to understand each other, and the communication process is often slowed down (Wells, 2013; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004). It is simply more difficult and more stressful to get a message across when having to speak a language that one does not master to perfection (Du-Babcock, 1999, 2006). In cognitive neuroscience it has even been shown that languages that are acquired later than in early childhood will require the use of substantially more cognitive resources, since speaking processes are not automated as they are for one’s native language (Abutalebi, 2008; Volk, Köhler, & Pudelko, 2014). Hence, the effort and distress involved with speaking a learned language will result not only in reduced comprehension and hampered rhetorical skills but also in decreased communication frequency.

Negative effects on understanding and communication frequency, however, are not the only problems associated with organizations where individuals have different native languages. Language diversity may also have important identity implications affecting intergroup behavior (Lauring, 2008). As a particularly potent element of group differentiation and ethnic conflicts, language has been found to be one of the strongest indicators of social identity (Giles & Johnson, 1981). Accordingly, language can be a powerful force creating a sense of exclusion from key information processes, cooperation, and decision making for those with insufficient language skills in the dominating language such as the common language or the parent company language (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, & Welch, 1999). Exclusion of certain individuals due to language skills can lead to subgroup formation based on linguistic affiliation. This could have important implications on the functioning of organizations. A number of studies have, for example, found that the need to identify with social groups in order to feel a sense of belonging may lead to negative attitudes toward other groups and counterproductive biases in resource distribution (Bartel, 2001; Rooney et al., 2010). Language diversity and the resulting organizational subdivision may thus harm the effectiveness of a business unit not only due to reduced understanding but also due to social exclusion mechanisms.

In an attempt to standardize communication and avoid language-based subgrouping, inclusive language management strategies has been unfolded in many business organizations (Fredriksson, Barner-Rasmussen, & Piekkari, 2006; Harzing & Pudelko, 2013). In a national language policy context, the concept of inclusive language was coined by Clyne (2005) to describe a contrast and alternative to the language of exclusion often applied by nation states when confronting immigration issues. Building on the work of Clyne, Lane (2009) discusses how legislation against discrimination through language use can lead to a greater inclusion of all citizens regardless of their background. This approach holds that the use of a shared language takes precedence over the coexistence of different linguistic systems within the nation. Thus, when taking this stand, parallel use of different languages is seen as exclusive and the use of a common language is seen as inclusive in that it provides a unifying code between individuals holding different language repertoires (Janssens & Steyaert, 2014). Here, Lauring and Selmer (2012a) have, in an organizational setting, explored how language management activities may stimulate inclusive language use and found that conscious use of the common language by the management level increased inclusive attitudes in multinational organizations.

Based on the aforementioned literature, we argue that inclusive language use may be conceptualized as a form of communication that allows others to take part in the dialogue in spite of inherent language differences. It may thus involve an attitude of being open and acceptant of variations in styles of speaking, vocabulary, and proficiency levels (Lauring & Selmer, 2012a; Sawyerr, Strauss, & Yan, 2005). This perceptual dimension of inclusive language use is central since acceptance toward linguistic differences enhance individuals’ willingness to communicate and also potentially diminish subgroup formation based on variations in the common language (Hinds, Neeley, & Cramton, 2014; Klitmøller, Schneider, & Jonsen, 2015). Moreover, inclusive language use in organizations should comprise the use of a shared means of communication by managers and employees in formal and informal situations so that linguistic minorities are not excluded from the communication flow, and so that an “us” versus “them” mentality does not emerge based on differences in national languages (Fredriksson et al., 2006; Harzing & Feely, 2008; Lauring & Selmer, 2010). In other words, inclusive language comprises open attitudes and the consistent use of a generally shared language.

In this study of multicultural business organizations, we focus on how inclusive language use can affect work outcomes in the form of creativity and performance. We focus on performance because it is a central measure to evaluative achievements of the work group. Creativity has been included because it has been a central argument that multicultural groups have a potential for creativity if communication problems and mistrust do not hinder this (Maznevski, 1994; Pieterse, van Knippenberg, & van Dierendonck, 2013; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Creativity can be conceptualized as the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or a group (Amabile, 1996; Zhou & George, 2003). Mumford and Gustafson (1988) suggest that creativity can be conceptualized as a phenomenon with a number of elements including cognitive processes (underlying the individual’s ability to generate creative outcomes or products), motivational variables (facilitating the application of these cognitive processes), and contextual variables (climate, evaluation, and culture).

Although most organizations strive to be creative in developing new products, services, or process solutions, this does not happen automatically. Organizations have to ensure that individuals will make creative contributions and this most often requires a keen managerial effort (Nijstad, 2000). One area that is known to increase creativity in work groups is communication and dialogue (Kratzer, Leenders, & Engelen, 2004). Hence, if inclusive language management can facilitate better and more distributed communication in organizations, it is likely that creativity in such groups will increase and that they will perform better in general.

We argue that exploring this could be worthwhile for several reasons. First, while the language theme has recently gained momentum in management and organization research, Piekkari and Tietze (2011) maintain that there is still little common thrust in developing research agendas on linguistic issues. Similar notions are put forward in a large number of recent articles that call for more research on the topic (e.g., Björkman & Piekkari, 2009; Harzing, Köster, & Magner, 2011; Lauring & Selmer, 2010; Zander, Mockaitis, & Harzing, 2011). Second, while a handful of researchers have touched on the concept (Lane, 2009), few studies deal directly with inclusive language use and its effect on work group outcomes (Lauring & Selmer, 2012a). Third, although some quantitative research in multilingual organizations have recently been published, they have mainly focused on interorganizational (headquarter-subsidiary) communication (Barner-Rasmussen & Björkman, 2007; Barner-Rasmussen & Aarnio, 2011; Harzing & Pudelko, 2013) or have been carried out in academic organizations (Lauring & Selmer, 2012b, 2013). Therefore, there is still a need for quantitative studies on how language use functions internally in multicultural business organizations. Finally, while the link between communication and creativity has been established (Heath, 2007; Kratzer et al., 2004), very little is known about how organizational language use affects this.

Hypotheses

Creativity

According to Kratzer et al. (2004) communication can be viewed as the “nervous system” of innovative organizations because creative processes are facilitated in interaction between individuals with varying backgrounds of expertise. This seems to be even more important in multicultural organizations where individuals’ backgrounds and perspectives may be substantially heterogeneous (Distefano & Maznevski, 2000). It can be argued that it is the internal communication in the organization that enables work groups to create a healthy social environment and coordinate work activities (Hobman, Bodia, & Gallois, 2004). This could well stimulate creativity because individuals trust each other and are able to quickly test their ideas among colleagues (Zhou & George, 2003). It may, however, be more difficult to achieve good internal communication in organizations where individuals speak different native languages.

A managerial approach to reduce potential negative effects of language diversity has been to adopt a common language. The consistent use of a shared language by managers has also been found to increase group cohesion (Lauring & Selmer, 2010) and knowledge sharing (Lauring & Selmer, 2011) in multicultural organizations. Hence, the management’s use of the corporate language in work-related contexts may well assist in promoting an inclusive environment in which employees will feel part of the general communication flow and thus may air ideas that are new to the organization. Hence, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1a: In multicultural organizations, inclusive language in the form of consistency of using a common language by management is positively associated with creativity.

With regard to employees’ use of the common language, Zenger and Lawrence (1989) maintain that individuals unfamiliar with the shared language are likely to distort and misinterpret information received from group members and thereby find communication more difficult. This can be due to different accents and different levels of language proficiency. However, if group members communicate through a shared language, they gradually develop feelings of trust that facilitate subsequent communication and information sharing (Li, 2005; Mäkelä et al., 2007). Hence, the use of a shared language among employees could improve possibilities for work-related communication that will allow group members to be more familiar with each other’s differences, thus improving incentives for further communication. Based on the above we propose the following:

Hypothesis 1b: In multicultural organizations, inclusive language in the form of frequency of using a common language by employees in work-related contexts is positively associated with creativity.

It is not only the use of the common language for work communication that is important. The use of a shared language also in more informal or personal circumstances may add to creative processes (Amabile, 1996). Interaction is known to create stronger personal ties and thus again increase the frequency of communication (Granovetter, 1973). Since interaction can be confined to specific language groups, the use of the common language in social interaction can help break down such barriers. Accordingly we suggest that:

Hypothesis 1c: In multicultural organizations, inclusive language in the form of frequency of using a common language by employees in private contexts is positively associated with creativity.

Finally, individuals’ general openness to language diversity in the organization may also affect creativity positively. Openness to language diversity will allow individuals who speak the common language or, for example, the host country language less well to also join discussions and dialogue. This will decentralize communication processes, as more peripheral organization members will be included and not just the dominating groups such as the management or host country nationals. In general, it has been argued that decentralization in decision making increases organizational creativity (Kratzer et al., 2004). If certain language-defined groups of individuals dominate the problem-solving process, the dominant group will be prone to information overload, whereas linguistic minorities may not receive sufficient information to be part of the creative processes. Since work group creativity critically depends on getting a wide range of information, it is important that dissimilar individuals have equal access to the information flow (Fleming & Koppelman, 1996). Finally, openness to language diversity will reduce the chance of language-based subgroup formation. This is important since Kratzer et al. (2004) found that subgroup formation of communication had a negative relationship with team creativity. Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1d: In multicultural organizations, inclusive language in the form work group members’ openness to language diversity is positively associated with creativity.

Performance

The management’s use of the common language could increase the feeling of belonging to the group for all individuals in spite of diversity in linguistic affiliations and skills. Hence, the work group could more easily develop a shared identity (Vaara et al., 2005). This will often lead to greater cohesiveness in the organization and more optimal work processes (Koschmann, 2013; Larson & Pearson, 2012; Wells, 2013). Thus, consistent use of the corporate language in management work communication may well increase the general performance of a business unit. Hence, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2a: In multicultural organizations, inclusive language in the form of consistency of using a common language by management is positively associated with performance.

Employees’ use of the common language may also affect the performance of an organization favorably. Zenger and Lawrence (1989), for example, demonstrate that the presence of a shared language determines the efficiency of communication because it guides how individuals interpret, understand, and respond to information. Accordingly, a shared language increases mutual understanding among organization members, and this helps them to communicate more effectively. Moreover, the opportunity to establish group involvement is increased when individuals interact on a regular basis (O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989). Not only because increased interaction leads to more frequent communication, but also because communication is more effective due to the fact that these interactions also result in some form of a shared language, thus increasing the effect of the common language even further (Pelled, 1996; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). On the other hand, if work group members do not share a common language, their work-related communication will be less efficient and more time consuming (Dearborn & Simon, 1958). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2b: In multicultural organizations, inclusive language in the form of frequency of using a common language by employees in work-related contexts is positively associated with performance.

In terms of personal communication, speaking a shared language in informal contexts is particularly important in the transfer of tacit knowledge that is difficult to articulate (Nonaka, 1994). And this type of knowledge is often central to organizational performance (Kogut & Zander, 1992). In line with this, Welch and Welch (2008) maintain that language commonality has a positive effect on the sender’s ability to transmit knowledge because knowledge often circulates within the social networks and informal structural clusters created by linguistic connections. Hence, informal communication could increase the information sharing that is necessary for performance in knowledge intensive organizations (Heaton & Taylor, 2002; Kuhn & Jackson, 2008). This leads us to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2c: In multicultural organizations, inclusive language in the form of frequency of using a common language by employees in private contexts is positively associated with performance.

Openness to language diversity could also have important implications for performance. Dissimilarities will often lead to reduced group involvement and reduced satisfaction causing individuals to engage in different forms of decreased attachment, such as physical or psychological withdrawal (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992). However, if individuals are more open toward each other’s differences, they will overcome barriers created by diversity (Hobman et al., 2004; Homan et al., 2008; Homan, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007; Shrivastava & Gregory, 2009; Strauss, Sawyerr, & Oke, 2008). For example, Fujimoto, Hartel, and Hartel (2004) demonstrated that diverse groups had higher decision effectiveness when showing openness to diversity. Similarly, Watson, Kumar, and Michaelsen (1993) found that heterogeneous groups performed better when openness to diversity was high. On the other hand, if a work group is less open to language diversity, thus giving rise to subgroup formations, this will most likely affect organizational performance negatively (Lammers, Atouba, & Carlson, 2013; Triandis, 1960; Xia, Yuan, & Gay, 2009). Accordingly, we suggest the following:

Hypothesis 2d: In multicultural organizations, inclusive language in the form of group members’ openness to language diversity is positively associated with performance.

Method

Sample

Our study uses a self-constructed database of e-mail addresses of white-collar employees in Danish privately owned knowledge intensive organizations. We contacted managers and HR personnel in multicultural organizations, defined as having more than 10% non-Danish employees. The data were collected by use of an English language electronic e-mail based survey. A total of 981 employees were invited to participate in the survey, and eventually 676 responses were received amounting to a response rate of 69%. The average age of respondents was 41.4 years, and the average tenure was 11.2 years. Sixty-eight percent of respondents were male, and 74% of the respondents came from Denmark. Non-Danish employees represented 51 different nationalities. Of the non-Danish respondents, 50% came from outside the European Union. The average percentage of non-Danish employees in respondents’ departments was 25.4. This is equivalent to responses in our collected sample. The percentage of native English speakers in our sample was 3.6. The average number of languages spoken on a daily basis in departments was 2.4. The percentage of language use in the organizations were Danish as the local language, English as a corporate language, and in some instances other languages when, for example, groups of German-, Mandarin-, or Spanish-speaking individuals worked together.

Instrument

The constructs were all measured by tested psychometric scales. English management communication was gauged by a five-item, 7-point (strongly agree to strongly disagree) scale by Lauring and Selmer (2010). This scale measures the consistency of using the common language in writing and speaking by the management at the department level (α = .81). A sample item is, “The Department Manager uses English in situations where more nationalities are present.” Openness to language diversity was measured by a four-item, 7-point scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) by Lauring and Selmer (2012a). This scale measures the degree of openness of department members to work with others in the department despite language barriers (α = .76). A sample item is, “Department members enjoy doing jobs with people despite of languages barriers.” English work-related communication and English personal communication were measured by direct questions: “Over the last 2-week period, what percentage of time did you speak English in: (a) Work-related communications? (b) Personal communications?”

We used five items adapted from Tierney, Farmer, and Graen’s (1999) scale for employee creativity (α = .84). A sample item is, “Department members served as good role models for creativity.” Performance was measured by Martins, Milliken, Wiesenfeld, and Salgado’s (2003) five-item scale for group successfulness (α = .78). A sample item is, “Everything this department does turns out well.” The same response scales as for English management communication were applied for both creativity and performance.

Size of department and number of languages spoken on a daily basis in the organization were applied as control variables. Both variables were measured by direct questions: “How many staff members are currently employed at your department?” and “How many languages are spoken on a daily basis in the department?” Controlling for the size of the department seems reasonable since it is not unlikely that large departments in business organizations may be different in terms of language management and inclusive language use (Bettenhausen, 1991; Jackson et al., 1991). The number of languages spoken in the department may also affect the language management as it may be different to implement inclusive language in organizations with few languages than in organizations with many languages spoken. This follows the Faultline Theory that would predict that while the existence of two language groups could lead to negative group categorization, a much larger collection of native languages would force individual group members to more regularly use the common organizational language when needed (Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Lauring & Selmer, 2012b).

Data Analysis Techniques

Sample means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson correlations were computed for all variables of the study. The hypotheses were formally tested by way of hierarchical multiple regression.

Results

Table 1 displays sample means, standard deviations, and zero-order Pearson correlations of the variables. There are significant associations between number of language spoken and creativity (r = .08; p < .05) and performance (r = .08; p < .05). This confirms the need to make use of this control variable in the regression analysis.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among the Variables.

Serial no.	Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
	Criterion variables
1	Creativity	3.41	0.57	1.00
2	Performance	5.65	0.75	0.38**	1.00
	Predictor variables
3	Communication management	5.53	1.13	0.19**	0.28**	1.00
4	Percentage of English in work communication	36.49	32.18	0.07	0.08*	0.35**	1.00
5	Openness to language diversity	5.05	1.01	0.34**	0.43**	0.40**	0.23**	1.00
6	Percentage of English in private communication	19.32	25.05	0.07*	0.06	0.28**	0.66**	0.17**	1.00
	Control variables
7	Number of languages spoken	2.44	1.12	0.08*	0.08*	0.24**	0.14**	0.15**	0.22**	1.00
8	Organization size	2.77	0.49	−0.02	0.01	−0.04	0.02	−0.05	−0.04	0.00	1.00

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

The hypotheses were formally tested by way of hierarchical multiple regression (Table 2). The control variables, organization size, and number or languages spoken on a daily basis were entered in Step 1. This produced significant associations between number of languages and both criterion variables. In Step 2, the four predictor variables were entered. This produced significant effects on the criterion variables, explaining 11% of the variation for creativity and 20% of the variation for performance. As displayed by Table 2, there was a strong positive relationship between management common corporate language and performance (β = .15; p < .001). There was also positive associations between openness to language diversity and creativity (β = .31; p < .001) and performance (β = .38; p < .001). There was no significant association between any of the measures of percentage of time speaking English for employees. All F values for the work outcome variables (creativity and performance) were statistically significant, indicating a proper fit between the regression model and the data. These findings provide support for Hypotheses 1d, 2a, and 2d. The other hypotheses were not supported.

Table 2.

Results of Hierarchical Multiple Regression for the Effect of Language Diversity on Performance and Creativity.

	Creativity, β	Performance, β
Step 1 (control)
Number of languages spoken	0.08*	0.08*
Organization size	−0.02	0.01
Adjusted R²	0.00	0.00
Step 2
Communication management	0.08	0.15***
Percentage of English in work communication	−0.05	−0.05
Percentage of English in private communication	0.03	−0.02
Openness to language diversity	0.31***	0.38***
Adjusted R²	0.11	0.20
Δ in Adjusted R²	0.11	0.20

Note. All standardized regression coefficients are from the final step in the analyses.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Discussion

Main Findings

This study explored the effect of inclusive language on work outcomes in terms of creativity and performance in multicultural organizations. We found that management common corporate language and openness to language diversity were both positively associated with performance. In addition, openness to language diversity was also positively associated with creativity. All relations were strongly significant. It is not too surprising that the relation between management common corporate language and creativity was not significant. This may indicate that while the management by speaking the common language can provide the necessary information and a feeling of belonging to foreign employees thus increasing the performance level, it might not make the organization more creative. This finding may suggest that not all communication promote creativity (Kratzer et al., 2004). For example, Kratzer et al. (2004) argue that too much and too centralized communication can be damaging to creativity. Yet this type of communication may not be a problem with regard to performance. As an indication of positive work outcomes, our findings are in line with Lauring and Selmer (2010), who found English language management communication to be positively associated with group trust and group inclusiveness and negatively associated with group conflict in a university context. It is also in line with a later study by Lauring and Selmer (2011) documenting a relation between academic head of departments’ English language communication and group knowledge sharing outcomes.

Openness to language diversity among employees had a strong effect on both performance and creativity suggesting that if employees are open to dissimilarities in terms of language, they will interact more broadly thus utilizing the full spectrum of perspectives that exist in a multicultural organization. This finding is supporting the hypothesis that multicultural work groups will be more creative than mono-cultural work groups if communication is not causing too great hindrances for collaboration (Distefano & Maznevski, 2000). The positive effect of openness to language diversity is in line with other studies linking openness to different types of diversity to favorable group outcomes (Fujimoto et al., 2004; Hobman et al., 2004; Sawyerr et al., 2005; Strauss et al., 2008).

We did not find any effect of employees’ percentage of time speaking English; neither for work or social purposes. Hence, it may be suggested that it is not so important that employees speak the common language all the time. It is more important that the management speaks the common language. But even more so it is important that employees are open to differences in the way people speak.

Limitations

As always, this study has a number of shortcomings that could limit to what extent it may be generalized. A potential problem of this study could be common method variance (CMV), since all the data were collected by cross-sectional self-reports. However, the general and automatic condemnation of cross-sectional self-report methods have been found exaggerated to the extent that it may have achieved the status of a methodological urban legend (Spector, 2006). Nevertheless, some procedures were implemented in this study to lessen the potential bias of CMV. As usual, the anonymity and confidentiality of the respondents were assured. Also, the items measuring inclusive language were spread throughout the questionnaire at different pages. Additionally, a number of the items also had reverse polarity. This design of the questionnaire may have contributed to diminish effects of CMV (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). To investigate the potential for remaining biases of CMV, Harman’s single factor test was applied (Aulakh & Gencturk, 2000). The exploratory factor analysis of the items, corresponding to all the variables of the study, resulted in a six-factor, unrotated solution where none of the factors accounted for the majority of the covariance among the factors. Finally, we found that the effect of the different inclusive language use variables varied from strongly significant to nonsignificant. This cannot be explained by CMV.

A second limitation is that this study has been carried out only in Danish multicultural business organizations. As part of the Nordic countries, Danes are generally known to have a high English language proficiency which may differ from other countries. To test the generalizability of the current study, more research is needed taking departure in countries with different types of language use patterns. This could be countries where English is spoken as a native language or countries where the native language has a broad and more dominating position worldwide such as China, Spain, France, or Germany.

Finally, the causality of the study cannot be determined with certainty although theoretically it makes good sense to perceive creativity and performance as dependent variables. It may, however, be possible that highly creative or high performing work groups find the resources to communicate more inclusively.

Implications

Theoretically, this study contributes to the field of communication management by being one of the first to study inclusive language in multicultural business organizations. Much literature has dealt with the link between cultural diversity and creativity/performance but few prior studies have focused on how language use and language management may impact the outcome of multicultural work groups. Thus, this study contributes to the hypothesis that cultural diversity will lead to creativity and higher performance if communication issues are dealt with correctly (see Distefano & Maznevski, 2000). The most central finding was that not all types of inclusive language use have equal impact on the work outcomes. The finding that common language management communication is positive for performance but not for creativity seems relatively straightforward as communication from managers are not enough to ensure creative collaboration. Openness to language diversity among employees, on the other hand, had a strong relation with creativity indicating that group processes related to language are more important for creativity than information from the management. Hence, we provide new knowledge about what types of managerial interventions that could be useful to make multicultural organizations more creative. We did not find any effect of the percentage of employees’ English language communication. While this could indicate that the proportion of employees’ English is less important for creativity or performance in organizations, this needs to be explored further in future research.

In relation to practical applications, our study provides managers with some insight into the role of inclusive language use and management communication in multicultural organizations. First, in order to increase performance and to a lesser extent creativity, our findings suggest that communication from the management is kept consistently in the common language in multicultural organizations. In this regard, it is important that top managers “walk the talk” and resist the temptation of using local language in, for example, large official group meetings. Top managers should also make sure that the communicating middle managers are aware of the effects of speaking a common language rather than using local languages. To be successful when using English as a business language, it is necessary to be able to express business-specific knowledge and undertake the relevant genre conventions (Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010). Hence, it is important for managers, in particular those engaging with diverse employees, to gain knowledge of business specific terms and sharpen their ability to concisely convey a message (Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010). Accordingly, we suggest that language training may be useful. This is not only to improve the vocabulary and pronunciation of managers. In addition, it can assist in furthering their knowledge of situation-specific expressions (Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010). The above language management interventions should be included as parts of a corporate language policy that could explicitly list preferred practices and the reasons behind them.

Results also suggest that the management of multicultural organizations should focus on creating an environment supporting openness to language diversity. Language diversity attitudes can be improved by interventions at the individual and organizational level. At the individual level, personnel responsible for diversity-management initiatives could focus on diversity training. Here, it is important that organizational members gain an understanding of how language differences are not neutral, but build on preexisting preferences that give rise to cultural and communicative challenges (Lauhiala-Salminen, Charles, & Kankaanranta, 2005). Furthermore, recent research has shown that contextual factors play an important role in organizational members’ willingness to communicate with individuals who speak the common language differently than them. For example, power differentials have an impact on individuals’ willingness to engage in common language communication—especially if they have a low proficiency level (Lauring & Klitmøller, 2015). Such individuals should be supported in their communicative efforts. This relates to the finding that training of individuals’ diversity awareness has a documented positive impact on group behavior, for example, knowledge of minority cultures (Kulik & Roberson, 2008).

At the organizational level, strategies and policies can be implemented to develop open and inclusive attitudes in interaction and collaboration with dissimilar others. This can be done in the form of missions, evaluations, and reward structures. Emphasizing openness to diversity as an important code of ethics and ensuring that people behave in ways consistent with the portrayed values may improve the functioning of diverse groups. Different organizations, however, may need different strategies and policies for promoting a positive diversity climate. Considerations concerning the aims and challenges of a specific organization should be included in the development of strategies and policies to make them effective in supporting openness to language diversity.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jakob Lauring is a professor at the Department of Business Administration, Aarhus University. His research is on international management with particular focus on language use and communication. He has published more than 100 articles in journals such as Journal of World Business, International Business Review, British Journal of Management, Human Resource Management Journal, and International Journal of Human Resource Management as well as Journal of Business Communication and Corporate Communication. He is an associate editor of Journal of Global Mobility.

Anders Klitmøller is an assistant professor at the Department of Business Administration, University of Southern Denmark. His research is in the area of international management with particular focus on different aspects of common language use in multinational corporations. His work has been published in national and international journals including Journal of World Business, Critical Perspectives on International Business, and International Journal of Public Administration.

References

Abutalebi

(2008). Neural aspects of second language representation and language control. Acta Psychologica, 128, 466-478.

Amabile

T. M.

(1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Aulakh

P. S.

Gencturk

E. F.

(2000). International principal-agent relationships: Control, governance and performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 521-538.

Barner-Rasmussen

Aarnio

(2011). Shifting the faultlines of language: A quantitative functional-level exploration of language use in MNC subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 46, 288-295.

Barner-Rasmussen

Björkman

(2005). Surmounting interunit barriers: Factors associated with interunit communication intensity in the multinational corporation. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(1), 28-46.

Barner-Rasmussen

Björkman

(2007). Language fluency, socialization and inter-unit relationships in Chinese and Finnish subsidiaries. Management and Organization Review, 3(1), 105-128.

Bartel

C. A.

(2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community outreach on members’ organizational identity and identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 379-413.

Bettenhausen

K. L.

(1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345-381.

Björkman

Piekkari

(2009). Language and foreign subsidiary control: An empirical test Journal of International Management, 15(1), 105-117.

10.

Born

Peltokorpi

(2010). Language policies and communication in multinational companies: Alignment with strategic orientation and human resource management. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 97-118.

11.

Brannen

M. Y.

Salk

J. E.

(2000). Partnering across borders: Negotiating organizational culture in a German-Japanese joint venture. Human Relations, 53, 451-488.

12.

Clyne

(2005). The use of exclusionary language to manipulate opinion: John Howard, asylum seekers and the reemergence of political incorrectness in Australia. Journal of Language and Politics, 4, 173-196.

13.

Dearborn

Simon

(1958). Selective perceptions in executive. Sociometry, 21, 140-144.

14.

Distefano

J. J.

Maznevski

M. L.

(2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global management. Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45-63.

15.

Du-Babcock

(1999). Topic management and turn taking in professional communication: First- versus second-language strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 544-574.

16.

Du-Babcock

(2006). An analysis of topic management strategies and turn-taking in the Hong Kong bilingual environment: The impact of culture and language use. Journal of Business Communication, 43, 21-42.

17.

Ehrenreich

(2010). English as a business lingua franca in a German multinational corporation. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 408-431.

18.

Feely

A. J.

Harzing

A.-W.

(2003). Language management in multinational companies. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(2), 37-53.

19.

Fleming

Q. W.

Koppelman

J. M.

(1996). Integrated project innovation teams: another fad . . . or a permanent change. International Journal of Project Management, 14, 163-168.

20.

Fredriksson

Barner-Rasmussen

Piekkari

(2006). The multinational corporation as a multilingual organization: The notion of a common corporate language. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 11, 406-423.

21.

Fujimoto

Hartel

C. E. J.

Hartel

G. F.

(2004). A field test of the diversity-openness moderator model in newly formed groups: Openness to diversity affects group decision effectiveness and interaction patterns. Cross Cultural Management, 11(4), 4-16.

22.

Ghoshal

Nohria

(1989). Internal differentiation within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 323-337.

23.

Giles

Johnson

(1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. In Turner

J. C.

Giles

(Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 199-243). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

24.

Govindarajan

Gupta

(2001). Building an effective global business team. Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 63-71.

25.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.

26.

Gupta

A. K.

(1987). SBU strategies, corporate-SBU relations, and SBU effectiveness in strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 477-500.

27.

Harzing

A.-W.

Feely

A. J.

(2008). The language barrier and its implications for HQ-subsidiary relationships. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 15(1), 49-61.

28.

Harzing

A.-W.

Köster

Magner

(2011). Babel in business: The language barrier and its solutions in the HQ-subsidiary relationship. Journal of World Business, 46, 279-287.

29.

Harzing

A.-W.

Pudelko

(2013). Language competencies, policies and practices in multinational corporations: A comprehensive review and comparison of Anglophone, Asian, Continental European and Nordic. Journal of World Business, 48(1), 87-97.

30.

Heath

R. G.

(2007). Rethinking community collaboration through a dialogic lens: Creativity, democracy, and diversity in community organizing. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 145-171.

31.

Heaton

Taylor

J. R.

(2002). Knowledge management and professional work: A communication perspective on the knowledge-based organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 210-236.

32.

Henderson

J. K.

(2005). Language diversity in international management teams. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(1), 66-82.

33.

Hinds

P. J.

Neeley

T. B.

Cramton

C. D.

(2014). Language as a lightning rod: Power contests, emotion regulation and subgroup dynamics in global team. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 536-561.

34.

Hobman

E. V.

Bodia

Gallois

(2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement: The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group & Organization Management, 29, 560-587.

35.

Homan

A. C.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Humphrey

S. E.

van Knippenberg

Ilgen

D. R.

Van Kleef

G. A.

(2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intra-group differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1204-1222.

36.

Homan

A. C.

van Knippenberg

Van Kleef

G. A.

De Dreu

C. K.

(2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: The effects of diversity beliefs on information elaboration and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189-1199.

37.

Jackson

S. E.

Brett

J. F.

Sessa

V. I.

Cooper

D. M.

Julin

J. A.

Peyronnin

(1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675-689.

38.

Janssens

Steyaert

(2014). Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding: Toward a multilingual franca approach in international business studies. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 623-639.

39.

Kankaanranta

Louhiala-Salminen

(2010). “English? Oh-its just work!” A study of BELF users’ perceptions. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 204-209.

40.

Kankaanranta

Planken

(2010). BELF competence as business knowledge of internationally operating business professionals. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 380-407.

41.

Klitmøller

Schneider

Jonsen

(2015). Speaking of global virtual teams: Language differences, social categorization and media choice. Personnel Review, 44, 270–285.

42.

Kogut

Zander

(1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383-397.

43.

Koschmann

M. A.

(2013). The communicative constitution of collective identity in interorganizational collaboration. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 61-89.

44.

Kratzer

Leenders

Engelen

(2004). Stimulating the potential: Creative performance and communication in innovation teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 63-71.

45.

Kuhn

Jackson

M. H.

(2008). Accomplishing knowledge: A framework for investigating knowing in organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 454-485.

46.

Kulik

C. T.

Roberson

(2008). Common goals and missed opportunities: A research agenda for diversity education in academic and organizational settings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 309-331.

47.

Lagerström

Andersson

(2003). Creating and sharing knowledge within a transnational team: The development of a global business system. Journal of World Business, 38, 84-95.

48.

Lammers

J. C.

Atouba

Y. L.

Carlson

E. J.

(2013). Which identities matter? A mixed-method study of group, organizational, and professional identities and their relationship to burnout. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 503-536.

49.

Lane

(2009). Mediating national language management: The discourse of citizenship categorization in Norwegian media. Language Policy, 8, 209-225.

50.

Larson

G. S.

Pearson

A. R.

(2012). Placing identity: Place as a discursive resource for occupational identity work among high-tech entrepreneurs. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 241-266.

51.

Lau

D. C.

Murnighan

J. K.

(1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325-340.

52.

Lauhiala-Salminen

Charles

Kankaanranta

(2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 401-421.

53.

Lauring

(2008). Rethinking social identity theory in international encounters: Language use as a negotiated object for identity making. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8, 343-361.

54.

Lauring

Klitmøller

(2015). Corporate language-based communication avoidance in MNCs: A multi-sited ethnography approach. Journal of World Business, 50(1), 46-55.

55.

Lauring

Selmer

(2010). Multicultural organizations: Common language and group cohesiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10, 267-284.

56.

Lauring

Selmer

(2011). Multicultural organizations: Common language, knowledge sharing and performance. Personnel Review, 40, 324-343.

57.

Lauring

Selmer

(2012a). International language management and diversity climate in multicultural organizations. International Business Review, 21, 156-166.

58.

Lauring

Selmer

(2012b). Positive dissimilarity attitudes in multicultural organizations: The role of language diversity and communication frequency. Corporate Communications, 17, 156-172.

59.

Lauring

Selmer

(2013). Linguistic diversity and English language use in multicultural organizations: Is there a moderating effect of the age of organizational members? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 1985-1996.

60.

(2005). The effect of trust and shared vision on inward knowledge transfer in subsidiaries’ intra- and inter-organizational relationships. International Business Review, 14, 77-95.

61.

Mäkelä

Kalla

H. K.

Piekkari

(2007). Interpersonal similarity as a driver of knowledge sharing within multinational corporations. International Business Review, 16(1), 1-22.

62.

Marschan-Piekkari

Welch

(1999). In the shadow: The impact of language on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International Business Review, 8, 421-440.

63.

Marschan

Welch

(1997). Language: The forgotten factor in multinational management? European Management Journal, 15, 591-598.

64.

Martins

L. L.

Milliken

F. J.

Wiesenfeld

B. M.

Salgado

S. R.

(2003). Racioethnic diversity and group members’ experiences: The role of the racioethnic diversity of the organizational context. Group and Organization Management, 28(1), 75-106.

65.

Maznevski

M. L.

(1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in decision making groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47, 531-553.

66.

Mumford

M. D.

Gustafson

S. B.

(1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 1003, 27-43.

67.

Nijstad

B. A.

(2000). How the group affects the mind. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Thesis Publishers.

68.

Nonaka

(1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14-37.

69.

O’Reilly

C. A.

Caldwell

D. F.

Barnett

W. P.

(1989). Work group demography: Social integration and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21-37.

70.

Pelled

L. H.

(1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7, 615-631.

71.

Piekkari

Tietze

(2011). A world of languages: Implications for international management research and practice. Journal of World Business, 46, 267-269.

72.

Pieterse

A. N.

van Knippenberg

van Dierendonck

(2013). Cultural diversity and team performance: The role of team member goal orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 782-804.

73.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

74.

Rooney

Paulsen

Callan

V. J.

Brabant

Gallois

Jones

(2010). A new role for place identity in managing organizational change. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 44-73.

75.

Sawyerr

O. O.

Strauss

Yan

(2005). Individual value structure and diversity attitudes: The moderating effects of age, gender, race, and religiosity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 498-521.

76.

Shrivastava

Gregory

(2009). Exploring the antecedents of perceived diversity. Journal of Management & Organization, 15, 526-542.

77.

Spector

P. E.

(2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232.

78.

Strauss

Sawyerr

Oke

(2008). Demographics, individual value structures, and diversity attitudes in the United Kingdom. Journal of Change Management, 8, 147-170.

79.

Tierney

Farmer

S. M.

Graen

G. B.

(1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591-620.

80.

Triandis

H. C.

(1960). Cognitive similarity and communication in a dyad. Human Relations, 13, 402-423.

81.

Tsui

Egan

O’Reilly

(1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.

82.

Vaara

Tienari

Piekkari

Säntti

(2005). Language and the circuits of power in a merging multinational corporation. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 595-623.

83.

van Knippenberg

De Dreu

C. K. W.

Homan

A. C.

(2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.

84.

Volk

Köhler

Pudelko

(2014). Brain drain: The cognitive neuroscience of foreign language processing in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 862-885.

85.

Von Glinow

M. A.

Shapiro

D. L.

Brett

J. M.

(2004). Can we talk, and should we? Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams. Academy of Management Review, 29, 578-593.

86.

Watson

Kumar

Michaelsen

L. K.

(1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 560-602.

87.

Weick

K. E.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

Obstfeld

(2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409-422.

88.

Welch

D. L

Welch

L. S.

(2008). The importance of Language in international knowledge transfer, 48, 339-360.

89.

Wells

C. C.

(2013). Controlling “good science”: Language, national identity, and occupational control in scientific work. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 319-345.

90.

Xia

Yuan

Gay

(2009). Exploring negative group dynamics: Adversarial network, personality, and performance in project groups. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 32-62.

91.

Yashima

Zenuk-Nishide

Shimizu

(2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54, 119-152.

92.

Zaidman

(2001). Cultural codes and language strategies in business communication: Interactions between Israeli and Indian businesspeople. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 408-441.

93.

Zander

Mockaitis

Harzing

A.-W.

(2011). Standardization and contextualization: A study of language and leadership across 17 countries. Journal of World Business, 46, 296-304.

94.

Zenger

T. R.

Lawrence

B. S.

(1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353-376.

95.

Zhou

George

J. M.

(2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 545-568.