Language Barriers in Different Forms of International Assignments

Abstract

International business activities are always accompanied by language-related barriers as companies are confronted with multiple local languages and a multinational workforce. To increase the efficiency of corporate communication, documentation and cross-national teamwork, an increasing number of companies have implemented common language policies in both their headquarters and their foreign subsidiaries and made English their official corporate language. However, introducing a common corporate language also creates friction among a multinational firm’s workforce and is fraught with challenges. To deepen our understanding of the language-related barriers that expatriates experience during international assignments, this study takes different tasks expatriates have to execute while being abroad into account and shows which types of international assignments are particularly vulnerable to the language effects. In particular, the study reveals that language causes negative emotional responses among employees of multinational corporations, restrains a common social identity, constitutes an obstacle to trust building and distorts organizational power relations. Finally, the study illustrates that not only a low absolute language proficiency of expatriates and local colleagues but also relative differences in proficiency levels among the multinational corporation’s workforce can hamper expatriate success.

North American Perspective

Language Barriers in Different Forms of International Assignments

• Joyce Osland 

1. School of Global Innovation and Leadership, College of Business, San José State University, San José, CA, USA

   Joyce Osland

This nuanced conceptual look at language-related demands and barriers in different types of expatriate roles is a highly welcome topic that warrants further empirical research. The chapter extends our understanding of the role of expatriation and language as well as the interaction among expatriates and host country locals with respect to the official corporate language and the local language. The proposed typology, which stipulates the relative importance of language-related barriers based on the degree of interactions with headquarters and host country employees, is a useful guide for researchers as well as practitioners.

The study of language and expatriates appears to be relatively nascent, so it may be early days to identify clear differences between the European and North American perspectives. Nevertheless, I will mention, albeit hesitantly, a few potential areas of difference. The most obvious is that English-speaking North Americans have often had the luxury of working in their native language, since English is the lingua franca of so many multinationals. Despite notable exceptions (e.g., Japanese companies where English speakers are linguistic outsiders), the challenges of dealing with two foreign languages—the local language and a different corporate language—has been less figural for many North Americans to date. As a result, North American expatriates and scholars alike may be slower to perceive the barriers or likely to perceive them in different ways, perhaps from a position of unconscious relative privilege as opposed to experiencing barriers themselves (this may not be the case for non-English-speaking North Americans in Mexico and Canada). For example, pre-departure training for native English-speaking expatriates, if it addresses language at all, might mention adapting one’s communication for non-native speakers and avoiding an unconscious tendency to promote host country employees who are the most fluent but not necessarily the most competent.

Another potential difference could be the usage of third country nationals (TCNs) in expatriate jobs, a group that was not mentioned here. US multinationals commonly use TCNs, many of whom are already fluent in local languages and selected for that reason. It might be easier in some cases, for North Americans to employ TCNs than Europeans due to EU mobility constraints. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see how that unique population perceives the role of language and language barriers in their work.

Some North American scholars (c.f., Schumann, 1978) see language fluency and intercultural competence as interrelated since linguistic fluency alone does not guarantee appropriate intercultural communication or competence. Keeley (2014) found that higher levels of global competencies predicted higher language acquisition in Chinese students studying Japanese in Japan. He used the Global Competency Inventory, a measure based in large part upon a thorough review of expatriate effectiveness competencies (Stevens, Allan Bird, Mendenhall, & Oddou, 2014). In the chapter, the assumption that the difficulties between the German expatriate and the host country locals are due to relative levels of language fluency would only be accurate if a low level of intercultural competence could also be ruled out. Thus, I would encourage measuring both intercultural competence and language fluency in future research and also including the question of directionality among the variables under study.

In my opinion, the topic of language demands and fluency for expatriates is an important one. I predict that this field of research will follow the lead of Tenzer and Schuster and continue to uncover and research more nuances and boundary conditions, as suggested in the following paragraphs.

Tenzer and Schuster rightly noted the possible influence of local resistance to corporate language mandates or English-only policies as another factor that could influence the study. There may also be countries or regions where multiple languages and different levels of fluency are more readily accepted and viewed more positively.

Culture is another important boundary condition worth consideration. In relationship cultures, as opposed to task cultures, good relationships are a threshold condition for being effective at work. Is it possible that all expatriate jobs require relationships and a greater degree of language fluency in relationship cultures? In high-power distance cultures, Chief Executives, as defined in the typology, do not necessarily face high demands for fluency in local languages, and, in reality, many are not. Due to the power inherent in their role and the resulting allowances made for them, chief executives often have bilingual staff and direct reports who adapt to the chief executive’s language, rather than the other way around. Their external high-level contacts in the local government and elsewhere may also speak English, so fluency in the local language is unnecessary. Furthermore, I have observed chief executives who only knew the basic greetings in the local culture who were widely trusted and revered. Factors other than a shared language result in trust. Personal trustworthiness and organizational trust might be a replacement for the trust that develops from a shared language. Organizational factors such as organizational fairness, organizational culture, and a strong focus on meritocracy or some other superordinate goal might create a cohesive, inclusive environment in which the language barriers described in the chapter are diminished.

The proposed typology bears some similarity to a global leadership typology (Reiche, Bird, Mendenhall, & Osland, 2015) that uses the level of global complexity (similar to the complexity inherent in expatriate roles) and global connectivity (similar to the degree of interactions with both the host country and headquarters employees) to distinguish among different types of global leaders. That typology, however, does not limit the parties with whom the expatriate interacts to host country and headquarters employees; instead it includes all the various stakeholders, within and without the organization, with whom global leaders interact. The other difference between these two categorization attempts is that the proposed global leader typology aims to measure the actual degree of interconnectedness and complexity in individual jobs. It does not assume that all types of global leadership jobs are the same. Empirical research could determine whether the same caveats are necessary with expatriates and their language demands. The same caveat could also apply to the authors’ typology in the future. I encourage the authors to test their typology empirically, thereby continuing to make a valuable contribution to this field.