The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-254X.htm

JCOM
13,3 Language management and social
interaction within the
multilingual workplace
218
Hanne Tange and Jakob Lauring
Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to identify communicative practices emerging from the management
decision to implement English as a corporate language, assessing their implications for social
interaction and relationships within the multilingual workplace.
Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory study based on qualitative research interviews
was used.
Findings – The analysis highlights the discrepancy between a general openness to the use of English
as a corporate language in Danish organisations and language users’ communicative practice. This
leads to the identification of language clustering and thin communication as characteristic behaviours
within the multilingual workplace.
Research limitations/implications – The interviews were performed in Danish organisations
alone. New research is required in order to apply the findings to other linguistic or national settings.
Practical implications – The research identifies two barriers to employee interaction within the
multilingual workplace. This is relevant in relation to language planning as well as diversity
management.
Originality/value – The paper is original in its application of a sociolinguistic perspective to
employees’ linguistic practice. This points to the importance of language as a social resource and the
possible limitations of corporate language policies.
Keywords Languages, Social interaction, Communication management, Denmark, English language,
Workplace
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Communication
Management
Vol. 13 No. 3, 2009
pp. 218-232
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1363-254X
DOI 10.1108/13632540910976671
Introduction
The ongoing expansion of business activities into a global market means that most
parent-company managers will have to confront at some stage in their career language
usages deviating from their own (Welch et al., 2005). This is particularly evident in the
case of international managers whose ability to control and coordinate people,
activities and resources on a global scale involves the management of communication
across national boundaries. However, also within the domestic workplace have foreign
recruitment, mergers and international partnerships added to the linguistic diversity
experienced by the members (Louhiala-Salminen, 2002). Management theorists
recognise the role of language as a facilitator that provides for the acquisition and
transmission of information through social interaction with others (e.g. Dhir and
Góké-Parı́olá, 2002; Feely and Harzing, 2003). Our research into the communicative
practices within 14 Danish organisations indicates that employees’ behaviour cannot
be explained with reference to language skills alone, but will have to be examined in
relation to theories on social identity and power (Bourdieu, 1991; Jenkins, 2000).
 Previous work on language usage within multinational companies has suggested Language
that multilingualism creates a difficult managerial situation with great implications for management
cross-cultural communication (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999b). The size of the
problem increases with the number of languages co-existing within a corporation, and
an obvious solution has been to introduce a single corporate language (mostly English)
in order to improve managers’ capacity to control and coordinate international
activities (Feely and Harzing, 2003). The introduction of a company language has 219
proved helpful to internal and external communication since it provides a common
medium for all members of the organisation and offers easy access to official
information channels such as company reports or employee magazines. Yet it remains
unclear what impact corporate language has on interpersonal exchanges between the
members of different linguistic groups within the organisation. In order to answer this,
the current study will explore the connections between linguistic anthropology and
cross-cultural management, taking as a point of departure an understanding of
language and communication as essential parts of social interaction (Gumperz and
Gumperz, 1996).
For an initial definition of language, we rely on the sociolinguistic framework
presented by Troike-Saville (2003). Troike-Saville relates language users’ choice of a
specific linguistic medium to socio-cultural concerns such as the focus of a
conversation (e.g. ingroup/outgroup, formal/informal), setting (e.g. place, time,
participants), function (e.g. task/relationship), and social identity (e.g. national,
professional, gender). Similar criteria can be used to distinguish national from
corporate languages. National language, on the one hand, is tied to a particular
geo-political unit. As the preferred speech of a nation-state, it is supported by a state
apparatus and has a strong relationship-building function, providing language users
with an obvious marker of social and cultural identity (Anderson, 1990). In comparison,
corporate language is the privileged speech of a corporation, which may or may not be
territorially defined. Although it is sometimes promoted as a symbol of organisational
unity, its principal purpose is task-accomplishment, overcoming any linguistic and
cultural barriers to effective organisational communication. In short, national and
corporate languages serve different needs and purposes, which is particularly evident
in a country such as Denmark, where corporate language planning involves the
imposition of an English lingua franca on organisations that are traditionally
Danish-speaking.
An alternative definition is offered by Bourdieu (1991, 2004), who conceives of
language as a symbolic resource that individuals use in order to achieve and express
cultural and social notions of behaviour. Within Bourdieu’s linguistic market one
encounters dominant as well as dominated discourses, and agents’ ability to employ
such codes determines their social power and control within a specific social or
organisational context (Hedlund, 1999; Janssens et al., 2004; Nahapiet and Ghoshal,
1998). Bourdieu’s emphasis on the social dimension to language has implications for
our understanding of linguistic performances within the multilingual workplace.
Employees who master the dominant language have access to a range of formal and
informal communication channels, enabling them to engage in social bonding across
the organisation, while individuals lacking such linguistic resources find themselves
isolated from information networks and decision-making processes
(Marschan-Piekkaria et al., 1999). This can lead to the emergence of alternative
JCOM linguistic markets or language clusters, as has been observed within different
13,3 organisational contexts (Charles, 2006; Vaara et al., 2005; Welch et al., 2005).
Our data reveal a second barrier to communication within the multilingual
workplace. We shall refer to this behaviour as thin communication, which we define as
the withdrawal of organisational members from informal interaction performed in a
non-native, corporate language such as English. The reason why language usage
220 appears thin is that non-professional speakers of English are often confined to a
relatively limited repertoire of linguistic registers, catering for professional exchanges
rather than small talk, and they may fear that an exposure of such linguistic
weaknesses will reflect badly on their professional competence (Park et al., 1996). As a
consequence, multilingual organisations see a reduced degree of socialising, small talk
and gossiping, which has implications for information transfers.
The purpose of the current analysis is to examine the communicative practices of
language clustering and thin communication in relation to trans-organisational
knowledge sharing and networks. We will support our claims by presenting a
qualitative study of cross-cultural communication within fourteen multilingual
organisations in Denmark.

The social meaning of language

The previous section has introduced the idea of language as a socio-cultural resource
within the multilingual organisation, highlighting the power of language to facilitate
and express social identities and relationships. The present section explores this
further, underlining the connection between language usage and the underlying social
structures of an organisation or a community.
Central to our understanding of language is the sociolinguistic notion of speech
community, which can be defined as a group of language users brought together by a
limited set of shared linguistic codes and registers (Gumperz, 1972; Morgan, 2004).
Access to a speech community is controlled by the ingroup members, and in order to be
accepted into the group, a newcomer will have to undergo a process of socialisation,
which involves the learning of collective norms and practices, as well as the acquisition
of the group speech. The implication is that language barriers do not exist
independently of social structures, which means that the implementation of a shared
language does not necessarily remove organisational obstacles to cross-cultural
communication. For even when they converse in a medium which they perceive to be
English, communicators may discover that they rely on different registers within the
English language, and this can cause their communication to fail (Agha, 2004;
Woolard, 2004).
Bourdieu (1991, p. 67) explains the social power of speech communities with
reference to the local field of interaction, the so-called linguistic market. By placing
language usage within a social context, Bourdieu demonstrates how individuals can be
excluded from participation if they do not possess the specific competencies and
qualifications required to enter into negotiations in a particular setting – for instance,
special knowledge, a certain style of interaction, or a command of the dominant
language (Bourdieu, 1991). From this perspective, language competence does not
merely involve a linguistic ability to select the correct form of a given language (e.g.
grammatical, syntactic, or morphological knowledge), but also a pragmatic capacity to
adapt language to particular social situations and contexts. At the practical level, this
means that language skills are conceived as a resource that may be enlisted in order to Language
persuade or motivate individuals to engage in certain actions, while, at the symbolic management
level, language represents a power asset employed by individuals or groups to
distinguish themselves in a particular social context. What counts as dominant, proper,
or natural language depends on the occasion at hand, which makes the ability to define
or reify what is considered legitimate speech in any given situation or setting crucial to
the continuous struggle for resources and recognition within an organisation (e.g. 221
Herzfeld, 2005).
Sociological theories offer a valuable insight into the use of language in the
negotiation of social roles and relationships, but are mostly based on interaction
between speakers of the same, national language (Brubaker, 2002; Jenkins, 1997). In
comparison, the multilingual organisation accommodates members identifying with
different national communities, which means that there is no clear hierarchy of
national languages. This makes it necessary to take into account a second aspect of
linguistic diversity, which is the multilingual character of international business
corporations.

The role of language in multilingual organisations

The term multilingualism implies a co-existence of more than one language within the
same organisation or society. Multilingualism can be ascribed to multiculturalism and
refers to codes developed within specific regional, ethnic, professional or social
groupings, as well as the nation state. Even within communities accepting a common
linguistic norm such as a national or corporate language, one is therefore likely to
encounter actual multilingualism (Silverstein, 1998; Troike-Saville, 2003). In the
multicultural organisation, the form and nature of multilingualism depend on factors
such as organisational level (e.g. global, regional, national, local, individual), setting
(e.g. parent company, subsidiary) and unit (e.g. function, position), which makes a
sociolinguistic analysis of organisational communication a very complex undertaking.
In the present study, we have narrowed the focus to multilingualism at the global and
individual levels, which enables us to highlight the contrast between management
theorists’ strategic perception of language and the communicative practices described
by individual language users.
Management theorists often rely on a meta-linguistic view of language based on a
system of national languages (Dhir, 2005; Luo and Shenkar, 2006). The principal unit
for analysis is the multinational business corporation, which means that
multilingualism involves a co-existence of competing national languages within the
same organisation. From this strategic perspective, linguistic barriers run parallel with
national divides, which reduces the significance of professional or social codes within
the national speech community. This makes language management – in the form of a
common, corporate code –a practical solution since the meta-language of English will
then override rival speech communities based on employees’ native languages.
Practice-oriented studies of linguistic behaviours within the global organisation has
challenged this strategic notion of the corporation as a single speech community
(Charles, 2006; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a). Rather than accepting corporate
language as an improvement to organisational information systems, research indicates
that language users resist processes of standardisation, which can be perceived as a
JCOM global challenge to employees’ local knowledge, status and values (Piekkari et al., 2005;
13,3 Vaara et al., 2005).
To explain employees’ responses to linguistic standardisation, one will have to
examine multilingualism from the perspective of individual language users. For even if
it does not involve a complete take-over by English, a corporate language affects
members’ access to the predominant codes within an organisation (Agha, 2004;
222 Woolard, 2004). Language management means that new speech varieties and
repertoires are adopted to fulfil certain “lingua franca functions” (Blommaert, 2003,
p. 609), which has implications for language users whose organisational position and
influences will be determined by their awareness of such codes. In formal encounters,
this is relatively unproblematic since exchanges are mostly undertaken in the jargons
of specific professional groups, which non-native speakers have acquired through
English-language education or as members of a community of practice (Keating and
Egbert, 2004; Wenger, 1999). In comparison, small talk and story-telling challenge
non-native speakers’ fluency, drawing on linguistic registers that are often less
developed. Employees may fear that informal exchanges will expose any linguistic
inadequacies, which indirectly undermines their professional status, and this can
motivate a withdrawal from conversations involving unfamiliar registers. As a
consequence, the communicative behaviours of language clustering and thin language
can be linked to language users’ experience with multilingualism, as we shall
substantiate in the analysis below.

Methodology
The current discussion draws on a larger qualitative study, which aims to identify
barriers as well as opportunities in relation to cultural and linguistic diversity. This
research focuses on seven areas: labour power, social working environment, image,
ethnic rivalry, market intelligence, international understanding and knowledge
synergies, applying a hermeneutic approach to the study of intercultural
communication (Nynäs, 2006; Svane, 2006). One of the themes emerging from the
investigation is the relationship between language users’ communicative behaviours
and social structures within the multilingual workplace – the topic pursued here. The
following section will reflect on the research methodology we have used in the larger
study, as well as the analytical process that has led to our identification of the linguistic
practices of language clustering and thin communication.
Our aim has been to provide a general picture of cross-cultural communication
within multilingual Danish work environments, and we have opted for a broad range
of organisations rather than an in-depth study of one or two specific sites. Our selection
of research sites was based on the percentage of employees with a national background
other than Danish, and they include some of the most culturally and linguistically
diverse workplaces in Denmark. All 14 units are internationally oriented,
knowledge-intensive organisations, where intercultural communication plays an
important role in everyday activities. The focus of activities is pharmaceuticals, IT
companies, high tech and engineering, and the organisations are located in
Copenhagen as well as smaller Danish towns. In addition to this regional dispersal,
the units vary in terms of ownership, size, and economic importance. With regard to
ownership, our sample includes private firms (12) as well as public-private ventures (2);
foreign subsidiaries (3) as well as Danish-owned companies (11). In terms of size, the
three largest organisations employ more than 5,000 staff, while the five smallest units Language
employ less than ten employees each. All use English as their official corporate management
language, which is common in Denmark because of the small population and the
growing need for Danish businesses to engage in international activities. However,
only 1 per cent of the employees are native speakers of English.
The main body of the data was collected in semi-structured research interviews. In
cooperation with organisational gatekeepers (Bernard, 1995), we identified key 223
informants engaged in cross-cultural communication, carrying out a total of eighty-two
interviews with managers and employees. Of the interviewees, 43 were Danish, while
39 represented other nationalities. Interviews were performed in Danish as well as
English in order to register as many details as possible. All but one of the English
interviews were conducted with non-native speakers, who had as their native
languages Polish, Russian, Rumanian, Italian, Dutch, French, Mandarin, Vietnamese,
Hindi and Arabic.
The interviews took the form of a dialogue between the researchers and the
informants, in the course of which questions were asked about the effects of cultural
diversity on communication (Bernard, 1995). The purpose was to invite informants to
describe specific situations where they found that linguistic and/or cultural diversity
had affected their daily working routines. The initial interview guide contained
questions relating to employees’ experiences with diversity, organisational guidelines
(incl. corporate language), and the impact of diversity on communication (see
Appendix). Since the study was designed in an open fashion, data analysis was carried
out simultaneously with the collection of new information, which allowed for the
continuous integration of emergent themes and ideas into the interview guide (Miles
and Huberman, 1994; Spradley, 1980). In practice, this meant that we incorporated
themes proposed by the first informants into the guide used for subsequent interviews
and thereby combined informants’ views with a systematised data-generation
(Fontana and Frey, 1994).
We analysed interviews by hand-coding statements, scrolling through the many
pages of text. Based on the coded material, we organised the data into indexes and
taxonomy trees with subcategories (Bernard, 1995; Spradley, 1980). In relation to the
present inquiry, the main topics to emerge from the analysis were cross-cultural
communication, language usage, cross-cultural knowledge sharing, and the
developmental potential of cross-cultural interaction, but it soon became apparent
that all intercultural issues put forward by the informants could be related to
multilingualism. Initially, language use was identified as a means to contain
communication within specific cultural and social groups (language clustering),
whereas subsequent analyses highlighted the themes of social fragmentation and thin
communication.
We decided on semi-structured interviews for our principal research method
because they provide an in-depth and multidimensional understanding of the setting,
as well as a valuable insight into implicit issues such as language usage and
communication practice. The main weakness of our method is the specific nature of the
data, which makes any conclusions hard to apply to other business situations, and
which does not provide for cross-cultural comparisons in the manner of qualitative
research. As argued in the previous section, however, the practices of language
clustering and thin communication can only be explained with reference to individual
JCOM language users’ situation, which motivates the choice of a method that allows for a
13,3 deeper understanding of human behaviour.

Communicative practices in multilingual settings

The present inquiry into the communicative and linguistic practices of Danish
multilingual organisations should be read against the backdrop of an ongoing
224 internationalisation of communication in Denmark. As the recent report by a
governmental committee on language shows, there is a growing tendency to request
that employees perform routine tasks and communication in their second or foreign
language (Sprogudvalget, 2008). In part, this can be ascribed to the limited size of the
population, which means that any international activity demands the acquisition of a
foreign language, but linguistic internationalisation is also supported by a common
belief that Danes have a special capacity for the learning of foreign languages in
general and English in particular (Preisler, 1999).
The Danes’ positive attitude to multilingualism comes out in the interview data.
Several informants characterise language diversity as an asset to their corporation,
stressing that such differences mean that more people use their language skills on a
regular basis. At the same time, language diversity is said to strengthen external
communication because, as one interviewee puts it, “you get an internal
internationalisation”, which makes it easier to recruit labour from other countries.
Finally, informants comment on the adoption of English as a corporate language,
which they see as an advantage for the Danish organisations because a constant
exposure to the business lingua franca will improve the quality of employees’ written
and spoken English.
The positive rhetoric surrounding language management obscures the fact that
many non-native speakers find it difficult to function in a second language (Park et al.,
1996). People belonging to this group may be unwilling to admit to any linguistic
weaknesses, fearing perhaps that this reflects badly on their professional competence,
so instead they opt for linguistic strategies that enable them to preserve or indeed
strengthen their social power within the organisation. This is particularly problematic
in organisations located in small countries such as Denmark or Finland where a rivalry
can develop between the corporate medium of English and a powerful, national
language (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a). In this situation, one may see the locals use
their national language for the purposes of informal communication and networking,
which undermines the status of the corporate language, while marginalising members
who do not speak the local language (Charles and Marschan-Piekkari, 2002).
The use of the national language to consolidate a position of social authority or
power fuels the practices of language clustering and thin communication. In spite of
Danish employees’ celebration of multilingualism, we will therefore argue that
language diversity remains an obstacle to organisational knowledge-sharing, and that
the problem is not necessarily resolved through the implementation of a corporate
language.

Language clustering
The communicative practice of language clustering takes the form of informal
gatherings between the speakers of the same national language and was first observed
in Marschan-Piekkari et al.’s study of the Kone organisation (Marschan-Piekkaria et al.,
1999a, b). In our interviews, most informants describe similar kinds of groupings, and Language
even if they commonly rely on nationality as the principal criterion for group management
identification, their observations reveal a classification based on linguistic similarities
and differences. A “Spanish” cluster may thus incorporate Latin American nationals as
well as Spaniards, while the “French” cluster will include any French-speaking Swiss
or Belgian nationals. What is equally significant is that language clustering is
something employees associate with their out-group rather than their in-group. 225
The Danes will notice these informal groups among their international co-workers,
while international staff emphasise the tendency among their Danish colleagues to
cluster. A Polish employee describes how the Danes’ tendency to form informal,
Danish-speaking clusters makes it hard to enter into a conversation with the locals:
In general, we work fine together. But like at lunch, if you sit there alone, then the Danes will
speak in Danish. They don’t sit together with the foreigners. The small talk is always in
Danish. And sometimes the small talk gives a lot of information. It gives you an idea of what
is really happening. It is something I really miss, to be able to really feel part of the
conversation. I don’t think my knowledge is used properly because I don’t know the small
talk. Before I was fighting it, but now I just do my work.
The practice of clustering can be ascribed to linguistic inadequacy. Even if they
perceive themselves to be competent English users, informants express a certain
comfort in speaking their native language, admitting that when they encounter a
work-related problem, they prefer to consult someone from their own speech
community rather than approach an expert belonging to another language group. The
exception is employees who are the sole representatives of a specific linguistic
grouping, and who may consequently pursue a policy of linguistic openness, ignoring
all linguistic and social concerns in order to seek out the person whom they perceive to
be most competent.
Language clustering can be characterised as the emergence of alternative linguistic
markets based on employees’ national languages (Bourdieu, 1991). In our data, this is
most evident in relation to the Danes, which is partly because they represent the
linguistic majority within the organisation, and partly because of the organisational
setting in Denmark, which adds to the symbolic power of the Danish language. An
observation made by an Italian employee underlines how this Danish domination
undermines the company’s image as an international work environment:
When I came here I was so disappointed. We always heard talk about the Nordic countries
and the expectations were very high. Like this company. I thought it was more international
when I first came here. I asked them before – do I have to speak Danish and they said no, no,
we are an international company and we speak English. But, they cannot say that it is an
international company and that English is the company language. It is just a Danish
company with a lot of foreigners.
The frequent use of Danish for informal interaction increases the symbolic power of the
national language, deepening the gap between those who have access to this linguistic
resource and those who do not. In the interviews, non-native informants comment on
the Danes’ linguistic practice, underlining that this is exclusive because it prevents
non-Danish speakers from participating fully in the social life of the organisation. In
spite of the corporations’ official claim to English as a corporate language, members
from speech communities other than the Danish find that their integration into the
JCOM organisation depends on their willingness to acquire Danish. For, as a Dutch informant
13,3 recalls, even if allowances are initially made for non-natives, the Danes expect
colleagues wanting to engage in social events to learn Danish, and those who do not
appear to make the effort, may be categorised as unwilling to integrate with the locals,
which can result in their exclusion from informal networks:
The language is important. I don’t think the technical side is a big problem. But if you don’t
226 know the language you get put in a box. Some of my colleagues are put in a box. If I say no to
learning or speaking Danish the effect would be that I would be isolated because I am living
here. If I were only visiting, it would be different (Dutch employee).
From a management perspective, language clusters weaken trans-organisational
knowledge-sharing and networks. When social interaction is primarily orientated
towards the members’ of one’s own speech community, little information is exchanged
across linguistic boundaries, and within the multilingual workplace this can lead to the
containment of knowledge within specific social groups. The result may be the kind of
linguistic fragmentation described below:
I was in a meeting and we were some English, some Canadians, and Swedes, and Danes, and
within half an hour the Danes where speaking Danish and the Swedes were speaking
Swedish. And after some time I said – I am leaving! And finally people started speaking
English. After that I actually found out that no one had actually understood each other before.
The people fromÅrhus didn’t understand what the Swedes were saying and we didn’t
understand much of the Danish at all (Employee, North America).
Even if this is an extreme example, the interviews reveal language-based
marginalisation of non-natives to be a common social dynamic within the
multilingual organisations, and one that generates a sense of isolation from
information processes and decision-making (Welch et al., 2005). Our research thus
substantiates the argument that multilingualism results in a containment of
communication and information to particular linguistic communities (e.g. Varner
and Beamer, 2005). The lack of social engagement noted by several informants points
to a second effect of language diversity, however, which is the reduction in the quantity
and quality of employee exchanges within the multilingual workplace.

Thin communication
As suggested in the language management literature (Dhir and Góké-Parı́olá, 2002;
Feely and Harzing, 2003), the introduction of a corporate language represents an
attempt to avoid the kind of social categorisation and linguistic clustering described in
the previous section. What is not evident in the literature, is to what extent the
imposition of a foreign corporate language changes individual employees’
communicative practice. Our interviews show a decrease in the amount of
communication, which suggests that non-native speakers withdraw from exchanges
or routines perceived to be non-essential if these require the use of English. As a
consequence, corporate communication becomes more formal and task-oriented
communication as one Danish manager observes:
Because of the diversity you focus more on the professional. You don’t think about from
where people come but only whether they contribute their best no matter how they feel
among themselves. You don’t focus on people’s mindset but on the result. Whether people get
 on socially or not is unimportant. In that respect being only together with Danes probably Language
allows you to draw on a broader set of keys.
management
Thin communication can be ascribed to the fact that people are confined to a limited
range of linguistic registers in their second or foreign language, and may have a
negative impact on organisational information networks and knowledge transfers. For
when people withdraw from gossip, small-talk and story-telling sessions, they abstain
from an important social practice, which contributes to the maintenance of social 227
norms and roles within the organisation, while facilitating the development of new
relationships (Emler, 2001). In addition, informal exchanges represent a mutual effort
on behalf of the participants to establish a common, social and cultural platform, which
again provides for social and professional knowledge sharing (Keating and Egbert,
2004).
The interviews show a general agreement that foreign staff can manage their
everyday tasks without any knowledge of Danish, but also that they are likely to miss
out on “all the social stuff and all the small-talk across the lunch table”. Several
describe conversations in the corporate language as “less thick” or detailed, which may
be due to the disappearance of the jokes and sarcasm that characterise informal
exchanges. As a consequence, one gets the kind of formal, task-oriented
communication described previously, but as one Vietnamese employee notes, this
does not necessarily improve organisational knowledge-sharing and learning:
It is definitely possible to work here without knowing any Danish because everybody speaks
English very well. But I sometimes feel that the Danish people are not very open and it is
difficult to get to know them. We don’t socialise a lot and therefore I think there is not so much
learning or sharing on the informal level.
Some interviewees see the formalisation of communication as a possible threat to the
coherence and integration of the organisation. As one informant puts it: “much of the
informal interaction derives from a strong organisational culture that is valuable to
us”. When using a second or foreign language, employees find they do not achieve the
same level of communication or information flow, which has implications for their
ability to participate in and benefit from peer-based networks and knowledge-sharing.
Danish informants are particularly concerned about the consequences of thin
communication for the atmosphere within the multilingual workplace. Several
compare the situation after the arrival of international staff to conditions within a
relatively homogeneous organisation, emphasising that even if they welcome the new
recruits, they find that internationalisation has affected organisational communication
very deeply:
We have got a more professional cooperation after we have had the foreigners. The fact that
we now have to communicate in English has made us leave the informal tone with chit-chat
and all that and much of the implicit work procedures have vanished. It has its down sides as
well because we cannot engage in so much joking and stuff anymore (Danish employee).
A similar story is conveyed by a Danish manager, who describes the situation in an
organisation that has attempted to accommodate non-Danish-speaking staff by
introducing English as the main vehicle for everyday exchanges. He has the
impression that when conversations are conducted in the corporate language, a lot of
information simply disappears:
JCOM There are a number Danes who have actually left the organisation because they find it is no
longer the same place to work. There is no longer the same consensus. The culture has been
13,3 shaken. I don’t know if this is because of the market or because the company has grown or
because of the foreigners. It may have something to do with the joking and the way we
communicate – like if you do it like this, then it means that. Like when I don’t say hi to
anyone one morning, this means that I need to be let alone the first couple of hours. The
foreigners don’t get that.
228
Our research demonstrates how the implementation of English as a corporate language
affects social interaction, knowledge-sharing and organisational culture. Informants’
accounts suggest that language management does not necessarily strengthen
organisational information and communication systems, and that a common language
may become an obstacle to internal knowledge flows, prompting employees to abstain
from exchanges that request their use of a foreign language. On this basis, we conclude
that the effects of language diversity are more profound than what has been suggested
in previous research on language management (e.g. Dhir and Góké-Parı́olá, 2002; Luo
and Shenkar, 2006). As highlighted in the analysis, language differences and corporate
language are equally problematic for the effectiveness of cross-cultural
communication, inspiring in language users the communicative practices of
language clustering and thin communication.

Conclusion
The present study has identified two communicative barriers arising from the social
use of language in Danish multicultural organisations. The interviews show how
language diversity fuels the communicative practices of language clustering and thin
communication, which again disrupt information transfers and result in a disorganised
use of human resources. The implications are that language users’ orientation of social
interaction towards the members of their own speech community represents an
obstacle to cross-cultural communication, and that the problem is not necessarily
removed through the adoption of English as a corporate language.
The analysis underlines the contrast between a strategic view of the multilingual
organisation, as represented by management theories on corporate language (e.g. Dhir,
2005; Feely and Harzing, 2003), and the communicative behaviours experienced by
individual language users. Non-native informants have commented on the way Danish
staff uses the national language to test foreign employees’ willingness to integrate, but
when managers attempt to resolve the situation by adopting English as a common
language, informants find that the result is a less detailed, thin communication. We
have attempted to explain the phenomenon by applying a sociolinguistic perspective to
multilingual business organisations, highlighting the connection between employees’
perceived language competence and their social roles and relationships.
Our research underlines the need for international managers to acknowledge the
social meaning of language in the practice of language management. Previous research
has suggested the importance of a common language as a facilitator of communication
in multilingual environments, but we would like to emphasise that the effectiveness of
a corporate language is determined by members’ willingness to use this as their
principal medium for interaction with colleagues from other national or professional
communities. Managers will have to ensure that employees have common interests as
well as a common language, which requests a focus on social networks, informal
communication and knowledge flows, as well as members’ openness to exchanges in a Language
foreign language. management
To overcome the barriers of language clustering and thin communication, we
propose the following strategies: with regard to language clusters, the problem arises
from a tendency among individuals to seek the company of people from a similar
cultural and linguistic background. Managers will therefore have to increase the
visibility of alternative groupings such as professional networks or communities of 229
practice, which typically transcend linguistic boundaries. This could involve a
re-organisation of labour, relying more consistently on multicultural teamwork,
cross-organisational workshops, and strategic cooperation which will bring together
experts from different speech communities. The weakness of this strategy is that it
fuels the practice of thin communication, which must be addressed simultaneously.
Thin communication is linked to employees’ self-perception, possibly concealing a
sense of linguistic inadequacy, which means that managers seeking to overcome this
barrier will have to address the question of uncertainty. One solution is to remove
language users’ fear of exposure, underlining that a shortage of English skills has no
implications for employees’ position within the workplace. International managers
may also want to stress the symmetrical nature of communication between a Dane and
a foreign employee, who rarely has English as his or her first language, and to provide
a platform for informal interaction through social gatherings, sports activities, and
teambuilding seminars. Once they have shared experiences and stories to tell,
individual language users may find it easier to interact with colleagues from other
speech communities as this will give them something to talk about.
Suggestions for future research include a study of the power relations between a
linguistic majority and language minorities, an examination of communication
between native- and second-language speakers, and an in-depth inquiry into the
specific nature and character of thin communication. One might also consider a
sociolinguistic mapping of an organisation, identifying relevant speech communities
and their contribution to formal or informal communication systems. A final
possibility would be to conduct a social network analysis, which would add a
quantitative measure of social relations within the multilingual organisation and help
to assess to what extent social interaction and knowledge-sharing are affected by the
use of a second language.

References
Agha, A. (2004), “Registers of language”, in Duranti, A. (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic
Anthropology, Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 23-45.
Anderson, B. (1990), Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism, Verso, London.
Bernard, R.H. (1995), Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Blommaert, J. (2003), “Commentary: a sociolinguistics of globalization”, Journal of
Sociolinguistics, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 607-23.
Bourdieu, P. (1991), Language and Symbolic Power, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Bourdieu, P. (2004), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, Routledge, London.
JCOM Brubaker, R. (2002), “Ethnicity without groups”, European Journal of Sociology, Vol. XLIII No. 2,
pp. 163-89.
13,3
Charles, M. (2006), “Language matters in global communication”, Journal of Business
Communication, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 260-82.
Charles, M. and Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002), “Language training for enhanced horizontal
communication - a challenge for MNCs”, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 65 No. 2,
230 pp. 9-29.
Dhir, K.S. (2005), “The value of language: concept, perspectives, and policies”, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 358-82.
Dhir, K.S. and Góké-Parı́olá, A. (2002), “The case for language policies in multinational
corporations”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 241-51.
Emler, N. (2001), “Gossiping”, in Robinson, W.P. and Giles, H. (Eds), The New Handbook of
Language and Social Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 317-38.
Feely, A.J. and Harzing, A.-W. (2003), “Language management in multinational companies”,
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 37-53.
Fontana, A. and Frey, J.H. (1994), “Interviewing: the art of the science”, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln,
Y. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, London, pp. 361-76.
Gumperz, J. (1972), “The speech community”, in Giglioli, P. (Ed.), Language and Social Context,
Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp. 219-31.
Gumperz, J.J. and Gumperz, J.C. (1996), “Introduction: language and the communication of social
identity”, in Gumperz, J.J. (Ed.), Language and Social Identity, Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY, pp. 1-21.
Hedlund, G. (1999), “The intensity and extensity of knowledge and the multinational corporation
as a nearly recomposable system (NRS)”, Management International Review, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 5-44.
Herzfeld, M. (2005), Cultural Intimacy: Social Poetics in the Nation-State, Routledge, New York,
NY.
Janssens, M., Lambert, J. and Steyaert, C. (2004), “Developing language strategies for
international companies: the contribution of translation studies”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 39, pp. 414-30.
Jenkins, R. (1997), Rethinking Ethnicity – Arguments and Explorations, Sage, London.
Jenkins, R. (2000), “Categorization: identity, social process and epistemology”, Current Sociology,
Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 7-25.
Keating, E. and Egbert, M. (2004), “Conversation as a cultural activity”, in Duranti, A. (Ed.),
A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, Blackwell, Malden, pp. 169-96.
Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2002), “The fly’s perspective: discourse in the daily routine of a business
manager”, English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 21, pp. 211-31.
Luo, Y. and Shenkar, O. (2006), “The multinational corporation as a multilingual community:
language and organisation in a global context”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 321-39.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D. and Welch, L. (1999a), “In the shadow: the impact of language
on structure, power and communication in the multinational”, International Business
Review, Vol. 8, pp. 421-40.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D.E. and Welch, L.S. (1999b), “Adopting a common corporate Language
language: IHRM implications”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 377-90. management
Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, London.
Morgan, M. (2004), “Speech community”, in Duranti, A. (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic
Anthropology, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 3-22.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational 231
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-66.
Nynäs, P. (2006), “Interpretative models of estrangement and identification”, in Dahl, Ø, Jensen, I.
and Nynäs, P. (Eds), Bridges of Understanding, Oslo Academic Press, Oslo, pp. 23-37.
Park, H., Hwang, S.D. and Harrison, J.K. (1996), “Sources and consequences of communication
problems in foreign subsidiaries: the case of United States firms in South Korea”,
International Business Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 79-98.
Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J. and Säntti, R. (2005), “Integration or disintegration? Human
resource implications of a common corporate language decision in a cross-border merger”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 330-44.
Preisler, B. (1999), Danskerne og det engelsk sprog (The Danes and the English Language),
Roskilde Universitetsforlag, Roskilde.
Silverstein, M. (1998), “Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities”, Annual
Review of Anthropology, Vol. 27, pp. 401-26.
Spradley, J.P. (1980), Participant Observation, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
Sprogudvalget (2008), Sprogudvalget Sprog til tiden: Rapport fra sprogudvalget, The Danish
Ministry for Culture, Copenhagen.
Svane, M. (2006), “The Intersection between culture, social structures, and the
individual-in-interaction”, in Dahl, Ø, Jensen, I. and Nynäs, P. (Eds), Bridges of
Understanding, Oslo Academic Press, Oslo, pp. 39-57.
Troike-Saville, M. (2003), The Ethnography of Communication, Blackwell, Oxford.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R. and Säntti, R. (2005), “Language and the circuits of power in a
merging multinational corporation”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 595-623.
Varner, I. and Beamer, L. (2005), Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace,
McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
Welch, D., Welch, L. and Piekkari, R. (2005), “Speaking in tongues: the importance of language in
international management processes”, International Studies of Management &
Organization, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 10-27.
Wenger, E. (1999), Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Woolard, K. (2004), “Codeswitching”, in Duranti, A. (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic
Anthropology, Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 73-94.

Further reading
Dowling, P.J. and Welch, D.E. (2004), International Human Resource Management: Managing
People in a Multinational Environment, Thomson Learning, London.
JCOM Appendix
13,3
Subject Time

1) Work background Employed by

2) Personal background Years of employment
232 3) What expectations did you have before entering Position
the organisation? Prior cross-cultural experience
4) What does cultural diversity mean to your Language experience
everyday work assignments?
5) In which ways have you adapted to the situation?
6) Are there anything you would like to change?
7) What formal guideline does your organization
have with regard to diversity?
8) Does other rules or guideline affect the role of
cultural diversity?
9) What effect does cultural diversity have on the
social environment?
10) What characterise a valuable employee?
11) In which ways are human differences employed
in the organization?
12) What problems do human differences lead to in
the organization?
Table AI. 13) How do human differences effect
Semi-structured communication?
interview guide, diversity 14) How do you feel when different languages are
management in Denmark spoken in daily work situations/social situations?

Corresponding author
Hanne Tange can be contacted at: hta@asb.dk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints