Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice: Language Policy in Multilingual Organisations

This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries]On: 10 November 2014, At: 19:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language AwarenessPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

Bridging the Gap between Theoryand Practice: Language Policy inMultilingual OrganisationsChris Allen Thomas aa Educational Linguistics , University of Pennsylvania GraduateSchool of Education , PennsylvaniaPublished online: 19 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Chris Allen Thomas (2008) Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice:Language Policy in Multilingual Organisations, Language Awareness, 17:4, 307-325

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658410802147295

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658410802147295

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Bridging the Gap between Theory andPractice: Language Policy in MultilingualOrganisations

Chris Allen ThomasEducational Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School ofEducation, Pennsylvania

A number of language policy researchers have discussed language needs of business,while nearly all of the scant literature on what a corporate language policy would looklike has been conducted by human resource management scholars and published inmanagement journals. This lack of attention in the academic literature is surprising,since corporate language policy (presumably) affects everyone who works or willwork in a corporation. From a language management theory perspective, ‘language’presents particular resources and challenges in multilingual organisations, such ashow to reconcile power implications of language choice with organisational need foreffective communication. In order for an international organisation to have an effectivelanguage management policy, it must carefully consider its linguistic needs and beable to develop and capture the linguistic knowledge of its employees to surmountcommunication barriers. Language management as a form of knowledge managementis proposed and recommendations are made with regard to language managementpractices.

doi: 10.2167/la466.0

Keywords: intercultural communication, language attitudes, multilingualism,sociolinguistic awareness, knowledge management, language managementtheory

Language Management TheoryLanguage policy and planning (LPP) can be understood as explicit and im-

plicit policies used in an attempt to change language behaviour of individualswithin society. As such, LPP may support or discourage usage of languagesor varieties. Language planning, according to Tollefson, ‘refers to all consciousefforts to affect the structure or function of language varieties. . . The commonly-accepted definition of language policy is that it is language planning by gov-ernments’ (1991: 16). Kaplan and Baldauf (2005) note that while this traditionalapproach to language planning focuses primarily on societal language man-agement networks, more recent approaches take a more ecological view andfocus on ‘micro, meso, and macro levels (i.e. not only at the level of centralgovernment agencies, but also at the level of communicating agencies, of ed-ucational institutions, of local governments and even of international bodies)’(p. 51). Their approach is grounded in language management theory (LMT),

0965-8416/08/04 307-19 $20.00/0 C© 2008 Taylor & FrancisLANGUAGE AWARENESS Vol. 17, No. 4, 2008

307

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

308 Language Awareness

developed and described in detail by Jernudd and Neustupny (1987). How-ever, distinction between micro and macro seems to rely solely on the reach ofthe social organisation (governments and international organisations are macro,while organisations and cities are micro) rather than on complexity of the socialinteractions.

LMT originated as a theory focused on language problems which arise duringactual interactions. Neustupny (2003) maintains that the LMT researcher mustkeep as close to interactions as possible in order to evaluate and understandthe dynamics of the interaction and put observed problem into perspective:‘language problems must be viewed within the context of communication prob-lems, and these within the context of interaction problems’ (126). The ultimatepurpose of such interactional observations is to take evaluated problems andmake them objects of adjustment designs, which may be implemented in futureinteractions. Nekvapil and Nekula (2006) note that in an LMT, social structure isthe macro focus, while interaction is the micro focus. They identify the relation-ship between macro and micro in LMT as dialectical: ‘In particular interactions,the participants recognizably orient themselves toward social structures andthereby reproduce them, and secondly, that in particular interactions the partic-ipants contribute to the transformation of these structures’(p. 308). The authorsmake a further distinction between simple (discourse-based) and organised (di-rected and systematic) language management (p. 310).

This paper brings together research from international human resources man-agement, knowledge management and language planning to provide examplesof language problems and language management within multinational organ-isations to suggest implementation of organisational language managementpolicy, and to recommend future directions for research and practice.

Corporate Language Policy

Why study corporate language policy?One reason to study corporate language policy is simply that little academic

research on how language is used in corporations has been conducted, althoughsome research has recently been conducted on power dynamics of languagechoice. A number of language policy researchers have discussed language needsof business (Hagen, 1988; Ingram, 1986, 1996; Lambert, 1990; Phillipson, 2001),but virtually all the literature on what corporate language policy would look likehas been conducted by human resource management scholars and published inmanagement journals. Secondly, corporate language policy (presumably) affectseither directly or indirectly everyone who works or will work in a corporation.Clearly, this impact is not limited to the domain of work conduct, but affectsattitudes towards plurilingualism and intercultural communication throughoutsociety. Language needs of business have a direct effect on language policy de-cisions of government, both in social justice and in educational policy. A finalreason, especially with regard to multinational corporations (MNCs), is thatthey present unique multilingual communities worthy of academic inquiry. AnMNC is commonly defined as a corporation consisting of a parent organisation(headquarters) and at least one subsidiary organisation in a foreign country. Many

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Language Policy in Multilingual Organisations 309

MNCs operate in multiple countries and across multiple languages, while indi-vidual units are embedded in local cultures where they operate.

A perspective on the current direction of language policy research in MNCsis offered by Piekkari et al. (2005). The authors focus on the role of language inthe communications between parent and subsidiary organisations, as well as ininter-subsidiary communications. They note that multinational organisations:

. . . can also be conceptualized as multilingual organizations (Barner-Rasmussen & Bjorkman, 2003) in which a language may operate as a bar-rier (Feely & Harzing, 2003), a resource (Barner-Rasmussen, 2003; Holden,2002; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999) or a source of power, with wide-ranging implications for control, communication and coordination in themultinational corporation (p. 333).

This paper adopts the abovementioned conceptualisation of MNCs in its in-vestigation of corporate language policy within a framework of LMT and offersa view of MNCs as multilingual organisations. Second, this paper presents liter-ature that investigates corporate language policies as creating linguistic barriersand resources. Third, the paper offers examples from research to illustrate ways inwhich LPP decisions structure, maintain and negotiate power relationships withinorganisations. The next section looks at human resources issues with regard to al-location, appropriation and acquisition of language skills, as well as assignmentof personnel within whom language resources reside. The final section makesconnections between language management and knowledge management, anddiscusses implications for language planning in organisations.

Language dynamics: Dimensions of language in MNCsAny MNC has a language policy that includes a parent company language, a

common corporate language, and multiple local (foreign) languages. A parent com-pany language (PCL) is that which is used by the majority of parent companyemployees at work. It is often the language spoken at the headquarters com-pany and is often an official language of the nation in which the parent companyoperates. However, if an MNC has moved its headquarters to another country,or if it has undergone an international merger, the PCL may be replaced bya common corporate language. A common corporate language (CCL) is the lan-guage of global operations. This is the language in which official informationis transferred between subsidiaries and their parent organisations. Due to thespread of English as a global language of communication, CCLs are frequentlyEnglish. A local (foreign) language is the dominant or official language of thenation in which a subsidiary operates and is spoken by locally hired employeesand management.

A local language differs from the PCL in two respects – an MNC often only hasone PCL, and it plays an important role in global communications and top-downdecision-making. Local languages spoken in foreign subsidiaries have primarilya geographical, or specific market, importance; therefore, they are used in localbusiness decisions. Local languages are spoken by locally hired employees andmanagers. If the subsidiary is wholly or mostly staffed with expatriate employees(parent company employees who are temporarily or permanently assigned to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


Table 1 Language geographical domains and users in MNCs

Geographicaldomains

Used primarily by

Parent company Parent company employees

Parent companylanguage

Domestic branches Domestic branch employees

Foreign subsidiaries Expatriates

Common corporatelanguage (usuallyEnglish)

Parent company;Domestic branches

Parent company management

Foreign subsidiaries Expatriates

Local (foreign)languages

Foreign subsidiaries Local subsidiary management; Localemployees; Expatriates

Parent company Repatriates (i.e. expatriates who havereturned to the parent company)

foreign subsidiaries), the language of local operations is likely to be the sameas the PCL. Table 1 shows geographic domains and primary users of threeorganisational languages.

Essentially, at least some managers at the subsidiary level must be bilingualor multilingual. A global subsidiary staffed with expatriates and local workersmay operate in three or four different languages, each with specific functions.For instance, local employees of a subsidiary of a Japanese electronics companyoperating in Tijuana, Mexico, speak the local language (Spanish), and occasionallythe CCL (English), but not the PCL (Japanese), while the expatriate managersspeak the PCL and the CCL, and infrequently the local language. Communicationbetween management and employees was explained by an expatriate managerin personal communication with the author as being achieved directly throughSpanish, or more often, indirectly through an intermediary who could speakSpanish and either English or Japanese. MeritaNordbanken, which achievedmultinational status through an international merger, had to choose between oneof its two PCLs (Swedish and Finnish) following the merger. After a subsequentmerger with a Danish firm, it chose English as both its CCL and PCL in an effortto conform to international standards and to decrease ethnolinguistic tensions(Piekkari et al., 2005).

Languages as resources and as barriersLanguage policies in corporations are often made for so-called ‘pragmatic’

reasons and are intended to address language needs by enhancing linguisticresources and removing linguistic barriers. Adoption of a CCL may improvecommunication and remove language barriers by encouraging global linguistichomogeneity. Conversely, policies that promote maintenance of the PCL andpromote usage of foreign languages also improve communication and removelanguage barriers by recognising the heterogeneity both of its staff and of itsglobal markets. Often all three strategies are utilised by an MNC to varyingdegrees, depending on its linguistic values and resources available. The threestrategies, therefore, can be judged as each representing language resources andbarriers, as shown in Table 2.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


Table 2 Languages presenting resources and barriers in MNCs

Resource Barrier

Commoncorporatelanguage

Improves globalcorporate-widecommunication

Facilitates a shared globalcorporate culture

a) May restrict access to information inother languagesb) May restrict access to foreign marketsc) May result in communication barriersbetween employees with limited profi-ciency in the CCL

Subsidiarylanguages

Improves access toinformation in foreignlanguages

Improves access toforeign markets

a) May result in communication prob-lems between employees and expatriatesb) Often does not facilitate developmentof a shared corporate culturec) High cost of expatriate training

Parentcompanylanguage

Maintains strong corpo-rate culture in the homecountry

a) Limits communication with local man-agementb) May increase cultural conflict inparent–subsidiary relations

Facilitates top-downdecision-making

A language represents a resource when it is utilised in a way to enhance strate-gic advantage at either the global or subsidiary level. Conversely, a languagerepresents a barrier when it effectively limits strategic advantage. Languagescan represent both a resource and a barrier at the same time. Vandermeeren(2005) points out that in such cases, companies may conduct cost/benefit analy-ses to determine whether adoption of a particular language within a particularmarket creates value for the overall organisation.

Common corporate languageWhether a corporation has remained national or decided to internationalise,

there may be considerable pressures to ‘standardise’ the usage of languagewithin the organisation. It must be noted here that ‘language standardisation’ isnot used in the traditional sense of language policy and planning literature. Littleoccurs within business organisations with regard to modifications of the corpusof a language, although most organisations do develop unique terminologythat reflects practices, values and culture of respective organisations. Languagestandardisation in organisations refers to status planning, and involves decisionsas to which language is to be used in boardroom discussions, internationalcommunications, research reports, internal documents and memos, manuals,training programmes and daily operations.

Promoting a particular language to status of a CCL has many advantagesfrom a management perspective, according to Marschan-Piekkari et al. (1999). Itstandardises conventions for reporting and sharing information between foreignunits, reduces potential for miscommunication and improves access to corporatedocuments. It may also improve informal communication between units andmay facilitate promotion of a common set of corporate values, developing ‘asense of belonging to a global “family”’ (p. 379).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


Although many advantages to language standardisation exist, ‘little is knownabout when the decision to introduce a company language is taken, or if itoccurs formally at all’ (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999: 379). The authors discussdevelopment of language policy in three European MNCs – Kone Elevators,Outokumpu and Nestle. A Finnish manager at Kone Elevators (a Finnish MNC)who was interviewed claimed that the CCL (English) evolved as a practicalsolution to problems of global communications. Outokumpu’s usage of Englishevolved over a period of three decades and was the result, as in the case ofKone Elevators, of an increased business network in foreign countries and rapidincreases in its non-Finnish workforce, mainly through its acquisition of foreignsubsidiaries. Nestle, however, recognises more than one CCL, especially at thesubsidiary level (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999: 380). Both French and Englishwere reported by Lester (1994) to have been officially adopted by Nestle asco-official languages.

A CCL in many ways is a resource, but it can also act as a linguistic barrier.Charles and Marschan-Piekkari (2002) point out that the CCL is often no one’smother tongue. In their study of Kone Elevators, a Finnish MNC, they notedthat ‘a large proportion of English transactions take place between non-nativespeakers of English (NNS), with native speaker (NS) transactions clearly inthe minority’ (p. 15). In cases where NNS communicate in the CCL, varyingdegrees of competence among interactants may result in linguistic and culturalcommunicative difficulties. As one Finnish middle manager put it, ‘Everybodyhas language problems, not only the Finns. We all speak bad English’ (Charles &Marschan-Piekkari, 2002: 17). Japanese MNCs’ usage of a CCL (again, English)in global operations did not remove serious language barriers between Japaneseexpatriates and local employees in subsidiaries. Japanese employees receivedfocused linguistic training, but almost no cultural training (Beechler & Bird,1999: 114), and their knowledge of standard forms of English did not preparethem to communicate in colloquial varieties (p. 118). They further found, as didCharles and Marschan-Piekkari (2002), that in subsidiaries where English wasno one’s mother tongue, difficulties arose.

The need for a CCL has been frequently noted by managers as importantto communication within and across organisational units. In Kone Elevators,Charles and Marschan-Piekkari (2002) found that absence of a common lan-guage presented a language barrier that hindered communication between unitsin different language regions. Even though English was officially the CCL, it wasnot spoken by many employees in foreign subsidiaries. As a result, 57% of theemployees interviewed in their study saw lack of a common language as aproblem.

Palo (1997) found that in global communications using English, NNS pre-ferred to communicate with other NNS, rather than with NS. Bartlett andJohnson (1998) offer the proposition that global business English is actuallya form of pidgin which is easier for NNS to understand than it is for NS, whoidentify English more with their own culture and communicative strategies.Therefore, NNS are less judgmental of other speakers. On the other hand, com-prehension is often limited, especially in the reading of written documents,which are in formalised Standard English.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


Acceptance of subsidiary languagesGenerally speaking, MNCs communicate with their foreign subsidiaries in

multiple languages. Communication between expatriates and headquarters per-sonnel occurs in both the PCL and the CCL. Communication between locallyhired managers and headquarters personnel often occurs in the CCL. Withinthe subsidiary, communication between managers and employees occurs in thelocal language, and communication between expatriates and locally hired man-agers occurs in whichever language communicants are most comfortable with.However, for competitive advantage, local languages are crucial, especially forinteracting with local markets. The subsidiary’s use of the local language facili-tates communication between the community and the subsidiary and betweenexpatriates and local employees within the subsidiary. It is generally agreed thatin order to do business in a foreign country, especially one which speaks a differ-ent language or language variety, knowledge of the foreign language and cultureis critical for success. Ingram (1992) sums up the need for multilingualism as aresource in the following statement:

Essentially, if we wish to sell to other people (whether it is products or ideasthat we are selling), we must ensure that the export strategies adopted bythe company or department are appropriate to the market to which theyare directed, that the products match the needs and proclivities of thecustomers, that the negotiators understand the conventions of the otherparty . . . not just at a superficial level, but with full understanding of theimplications of what they or their partners are saying, and that thosecharged with marketing the products are able to promote them in the mosteffective way to the potential customers (hence, in their own language,and recognizing what will be commercially most persuasive) (p. 15).

The fact that many of our most cherished brands of goods come to us fromforeign-owned MNCs indicates their success in operating in a multilingualenvironment.

Most MNCs utilise expatriate managers in foreign subsidiaries, where theyshare management duties with local employees intimately familiar with the lan-guage and culture in which the subsidiary operates. A small body of research hasfocused on the benefits of cross-linguistic management teams at the subsidiarylevel. It has found that effective multilingual management is crucial to groupcohesiveness and teamwork (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000; Goodall & Roberts,2003; Holden, 2002; Schneider & Barsoux, 1997). Goodall and Roberts (2003)found that making honest attempts to speak the language of others on one’steam resulted in the development of trust between team members, thus im-proving the team’s quality of work. Holden (2002) argues that effective commu-nication strategies among teammates resulted in ‘a permanent state of culturalrecreation’ (p. 46). Henderson (2005) claims that this ‘cultural recreation’ includes“‘recreating” language and communication norms in the sense that individualsare negotiating and agreeing on shared meanings and discourse conventions asthey switch from a monolingual to a multilingual context’ (p. 74). Such efforts,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


if made sincerely by members of a team, result in trust that enhances teamcreativity and performance through a unique, shared multicultural view.

Although use of local languages in subsidiary contexts offers many advan-tages (Ingram, 1992, 1996), Charles and Marschan-Piekkari (2002) found that se-rious communication barriers exist when no common language can be found be-tween the parent and subsidiary languages. This is especially true in subsidiarieslocated in developing countries, since the use of English is far from widespreadand the subsidiary language is often not sufficiently learned by expatriates be-fore assignment. It may take years for expatriates to develop a level of fluencyin the subsidiary language required to overcome communication barriers.

There continues to be much disagreement as to the necessity of expatriates tounderstand and use the local language of subsidiaries. Vihakara (2006) pointsout one reason is that language training is costly, and there is no guarantee thatlanguage skills acquired will be useful in future global assignments. However,most companies agree that competence in the subsidiary language is desirable(p. 74).

Parent company languageIn MNCs whose headquarters are based in countries where the language is

not English, often the PCL differs from the language of global operations. Thecontinued maintenance of the PCL has many benefits for parent organisationemployees, since it is the language with which they are most comfortable. Ithas been found to facilitate strong corporate culture in the home country, butproblems often arise regarding how that corporate culture is negotiated betweenthe parent company and its various global subsidiaries (Beechler & Bird, 1999).

There remains a gap in the literature on language policy regarding the benefitsof an MNC’s choice to maintain its PCL after adopting a CCL. On the otherhand, much has been written about language barriers in parent–subsidiaryrelations. Vihakara (2006) claims that the language barrier is the highest in suchrelations. Charles and Piekkari (2002) note that important miscommunicationsoccur because expatriates and local employees must exchange information in alanguage of which neither has perfect grasp. Feely and Harzing (2003) presentthe language barrier in parent subsidiary relations succinctly:

Companies for which language is a serious barrier will be unlikely tobe able to globalize their bureaucratic formalized control systems. Thelanguage of the policies, procedures and systems developed in the parentlanguage will be a serious impediment to their use in subsidiaries. If theyremain untranslated, lack of understanding at subsidiary level will limiteffective application of the detailed guidelines. (p. 11).

The authors postulate that when the language barrier is high between parentand subsidiary, the MNC is less likely to control the subsidiary through means ofsocialisation. This has been true of many American MNCs, who have often leftforeign subsidiary management entirely in the hands of local managers (Garcia& Otheguy, 1994). On the other hand, MNCs may also utilise higher numbersof expatriates and expect them to develop skills in the subsidiary language andact as a communicative bridge (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Marschan-Piekkari et al.,1999).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


Finally, Bartlett and Johnson’s (1998) research presents the possibility that thenative English of some parent companies may not even be the same language asthe English of global operations. They argue that so-called ‘global English’ mayactually be a pidgin. This could constitute another language barrier – especiallyin communication between NS and NNS of English. Furthermore, numerousvarieties of English differ greatly from British/American/Australian English.The expectation that English is English wherever one is in the world may resultin serious miscommunications.

Power and the Dialectical Relation between Macro and MicroAll language policy decisions carry with them power implications (Jernudd

& Neustupny, 1987; Nekvapil, 2007). Vaara et al. (2005) claim that ‘corporate lan-guage policies are easily seen as “practical”, “inevitable” and even “natural”.Whether we like it or not, they also involve power implications that are easilyoverlooked’ (p. 622). Corporate language policymakers often fail to considerhow LPP decisions play into the power dynamics of their organisations. Theresult of seeing language simply as a means to an end is that the relationshipbetween language and identity is often overlooked by policymakers. Fixman(1990) pointed out with regard to American business, most managers considerlanguage as merely a tool, while culture is important. It is possible that divorce-ment of language and culture common in some MNCs leads to failures to seethe implications of LPP decisions on the effectiveness of knowledge transferwithin organisations and on the health of an organisation’s culture. Søderbergand Holden (2002) claim that ‘. . . the assumption that all inhabitants in a nationand all managers and employees in an organization carry the same culturalvalue orientation . . . tends to entail blindness as regards social variation, diver-sity, and power’ (p. 108). This section looks at power implications resulting fromselection of a CCL in a cross-border merger.

The merger of a Swedish and Finnish bankCompanies may be forced to make language policy decisions subsequent to

cross-border mergers. When companies with two different language policiesmerge to form one company, the choice is often to adopt one language for themerged organisation. Two cultures come into contact in ways similar to ‘col-onizing and colonized cultures’ (Vaara et al., 2005: 599), and the intention forthem to ‘integrate’ quickly with few problems, is simply not realistic. Piekkariet al. (2005), citing Hogan and Overmyer-Day (1994), point out that a ‘merger’ oftwo organisations is sold to the employees and public as a ‘marriage of equals’but that such cases are, in fact, extremely uncommon. Rarely are two organisa-tions equal in the sense of co-management and co-dominance. When a mergerincludes organisations from two different countries representing different lan-guages and cultures, integration problems become even more complex.

Vaara et al. (2005) report on one cross-border merger and its implicationsfor language policy. In their ethnographic study of a merger between FinnishMerita Bank and Swedish Nordbanken, they look at the role of circuits of powerin formation of language policy in the post-merger organisation that recognisedSwedish as the official CCL. The term was adapted from Clegg (1989), who

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


studied social interactions and how they contributed to empowerment and dis-empowerment in interactions. Vaara et al.’s (2005) framework considered threeconcepts of power and their implications in MeritaNordbanken (MNB), the post-merger organisation: episodic power (in social interactions), power in the construc-tion of identity/subjectivity (e.g. professional, national and corporate identities)and hierarchical power. Episodic power, according to the study, has implicationsin three areas. First, language skills became resources that either empoweredor disempowered individuals in daily interactions. Second, language skills alsobecame associated with professional competence in post-merger individuals.Third, social networks changed in ways that favoured individuals with languageskills that were more highly valued in MNB. Language’s role in the constructionof identity/subjectivity in MNB had power implications in the following twoways: through necessary reconstruction of international categories and con-frontations, and through construction of post-colonial, superiority/inferiorityrelationships. Language’s role in the construction of hierarchical power in MNBwas seen in terms of a recreation of post-colonial hegemonic power structures, aswell as in terms of neo-colonial MNC organisational structures (Vaara et al., 2005:601).

Vaara et al. (2005) point out that the choice of Swedish as a CCL was seenby managers as of minor importance and made for purely pragmatic, economicreasons. For instance, in the bilingual Merita Bank, many documents were al-ready in both Finnish and Swedish, while in Nordbanken, all documents were inSwedish. By choosing Swedish as the CCL, they believed that money and timecould be saved during integration. Furthermore, many of the top managementof Merita already had some proficiency in Swedish, while the top managementof Nordbanken was unable to communicate in Finnish (p. 612). Therefore, it wasupon the recommendation of the Finnish CEO of Merita Bank. Following thepolicy, many Finns developed ‘resistance’ and ‘coping’ strategies, such as usingFinnish as a ‘secret language’ in boardroom discussions, using English, ratherthan Swedish, in internal communications, transferring to regional branch of-fices, or leaving the company (p. 620). Vaara et al. also point out, however, thatSwedish top management were forced into and trapped by the role of ‘colonizer’‘ascribed to them by the Finns’ (p. 620).

Marschan-Piekkari et al. (1999), in summarising power implications in thechoice of a language in MNCs, look at the resulting career options of new andexisting employees in subsidiaries. Those with some degree of competence in theCCL often have available to them increased opportunities for training and aremore likely to receive international assignments necessary for career advance-ment. Employees without competence in the CCL must find ways to developlanguage skills, often without assistance from the organisation for which theywork. If they do acquire the CCL, they may be offered additional training.However, if they do not, employees are destined to stay local and have littleopportunity for career development (p. 384).

Implications for Organised Language ManagementThe value of organisational language policy research is its ability to focus on

the organisation as the unit of analysis (Long, 2005). An organisation’s language

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


policy has a profound effect on corporate communication and must be integratedinto its overall organisational strategy to have the greatest impact. This sectionprovides several realised and potential ‘best practices’ with regard to languageplanning within multinational organisations. The practices offered here coverglobal issues, such as choosing and implementing a CCL and the valuation ofmultiple languages, as well as issues regarding how linguistic resources mightbe managed within the organisation and who might be best equipped to managethose resources.

Language standardisationWhen companies internationalise, they invariably become more complex

with regard to the mix of languages and cultures embodied in their personnel.Marschan-Piekkari et al. (1999) recommend that MNCs recognise that languagestandardisation cannot solve all communication problems encountered in multi-lingual environments (p. 384). In fact, it may add to communication problems invarious ways, not the least of which is the (re)distribution of power. When adopt-ing a language policy, MNCs should realise that any official choice of languagecarries with it power implications. Failing to take such factors into considera-tion may result in disenfranchisement of personnel and loss of valuable talent.Conversely, recognising and addressing power implications of language policydecisions allows for more effectively strategising shifts in language policy. Italso sends employees a message that their voices are recognised when makingsuch decisions.

Valuation of multiple languagesDhir and Goke-Parıola (2002) suggest that MNCs must always ‘think global,

act local’. This includes being aware that multiple languages are important tothe organisation for different reasons: ‘The adoption of a language policy thatwould specify what language would be used in what context within a corpora-tion may provide greater strategic advantage’ (p. 249). This is especially true inthe context of subsidiary operations. US-, British- and Australia-based organ-isations are particularly in danger of undervaluing foreign languages becauseEnglish has become a world standard in business communication. However,in many countries, especially developing countries, the majority of employeeshave either limited or no proficiency in English. The belief that one can do busi-ness in such contexts without valuing foreign languages is ethnocentric at best.Researchers in corporate language policy continue to point out the competitiveadvantage that comes from respect of the language and culture of foreign mar-kets (Dhir & Goke-Parıola, 2002; Garcia & Otheguy, 1994; Ingram, 1992, 1996).Part of this respect comes from attempting to manufacture products that meetlocal needs and values. But part of this respect comes from making honest at-tempts to understand the language and culture of employees and customers inthose markets. If national education language policies do not encourage foreignlanguage education, companies may find that it is difficult to hire employeeswith the requisite language skills for global management roles. Therefore, for-eign language training within the MNC or a tuition reimbursement programmeshould be available to all employees with management potential.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


Use of expatriate managers in global assignments has traditionally been themultinational organisation’s approach to learning about foreign cultures in or-der to increase strategic decision-making capabilities during the process of in-ternationalisation. Expatriation is increasingly being used to develop a core ofemployees who have capabilities to work globally in multiple cultures. This re-quires sensitivity and responsiveness to multiple cultures and an understandingof the relationship between cultures and languages. However, while expatriatemanagers often have access to training in the language of the foreign subsidiary,local employees and managers who work with the expatriates often do not haveaccess to the same resources to learn either the CCL or the PCL. Considera-tion of local employees’ interest in developing linguistic skills for the benefitof the organisation should also be part of a language policy that values mul-tiple languages. Such a consideration would also enhance the performance ofmulticultural teams. As it stands, many multicultural teams perform poorlydue to the lack of valuation of the languages and cultures of others on theteam.

Identification of organisational linguistic resourcesLanguage audits

The organisational language audit proposes an approach to linguistic needs thatfocuses at the level of the organisation. Van Hest and Oud de-Glas (1990) definethe notion of a language audit for business as ‘a technique designed to enableenterprises to analyze and specify the extent of their foreign language needs andtraining requirements’ (p. 23). Long (2005) points out that language audits differqualitatively from language needs analyses. Whereas needs analyses attemptto determine the language needs of individuals and occasionally social groups,language audits treat the organisation or institution as the unit of analysis (Long,2005: 40–41).

Presenting to the Annual Conference on Languages and Communication forWorld Business, Greensmith (1994) provided guidelines for how organisationscould go about determining those foreign language needs through the use of alanguage audit (also called a linguistic audit), which she defines as ‘an investiga-tion of corporate communication policy in an international environment’ (p. 2).A few years later, Reeves and Wright (1996) offered a comprehensive tool forconducting language audits in organisations. They further define the concept ofa language audit as a tool for identification of strengths and weaknesses withinthe organisation in terms of its foreign language needs at strategic, process andindividual levels (Reeves & Wright, 1996: 5). Koster (2004) points out that twomain purposes for a language audit are to aid in the organisation’s develop-ment of a foreign language policy and to collect data through survey methodsand interviews that can be used for customised language training programmestargeting specific needs of employees.

Expatriation and social network analysis

The importance of social networks to expatriates has been stressed by Greve(1995) with regard to entrepreneurial ventures and by Szarka (1990) with regardto small firms. Social networks reduce the cultural distance between actors

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


in international marketing (Cunningham & Homse, 1986) and internationalnegotiations (Kapoor et al., 1991). Nekvapil and Nekula (2006) also point outthat all language management occurs within large and small social networks.Because language skills are critical in all these environments, social networkanalysis in language audits becomes a necessity to determine strengths andweaknesses in the expatriate’s communicative environment.

An expatriate, as a representative of the parent organisation, must furthermoretry to become established in the network in such a way as to be as centralas possible globally and locally (Scott, 1991). Being locally central refers tohaving and maintaining a large number of social connections within the localenvironment, while being globally central refers to the strategic significance ofconnections in the structure of the entire network. In this way, expatriates areable to obtain more information than they otherwise would because they haverelationships with both strategic decisionmakers and informants who are ableto provide an interpretive framework for information (Andersson et al., 1996).Expatriates who have difficulty developing business and social networks in theirforeign subsidiary due to communicative barriers may be unable to transferlocal business knowledge to corporate headquarters, and in many cases, maybe afraid to do so.

A further potential benefit of language audits is the strategic placement of em-ployees who represent important linguistic resources. For instance, expatriateswho have developed language skills may play important roles in the organisa-tion after repatriation (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999).As more employees receive international training, the linguistic resources ofan MNC increase dramatically, but many companies fail to keep track of thoseresources. Repatriates (i.e. expatriates who have returned to the parent organisa-tion) may operate (formally or informally, through social networks) as language‘nodes’ who greatly facilitate transfer of information between units in the organ-isation by becoming ‘the interface, through language, between headquarters andthe local subsidiary, and also between subsidiaries’ (Marschan-Piekkari et al.,1999: 386).

A corporate dictionaryEvery organisation has a language that is unique to the organisation. As such,

every organisation is an instantiation of a language community with vocabu-lary, syntax and discourse styles different from all other organisations. Thesedifferences contribute to a corporate culture that existing employees perpetuateand new employees must socialise into. The larger and more complex an or-ganisation is, the more distinctive this corporate language may become. Due tothese factors, it is sometimes difficult for new employees to learn the corporateculture and language and to communicate within it.

From a language management perspective, there are a number of reasonsfor corporations to look at their own languages. First, codification of its ownlanguage through the creation of definitive texts allows an organisation tocapture knowledge held tacitly among members within and associated withthe organisation. Second, it facilitates socialisation into an organisation’s cul-ture, which benefits new employees. Third, regional and departmental uses of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


language should be identified so as to improve the quality and efficiency of inter-departmental and inter-unit communication. Finally, a corporation interestedin studying its own culture (for instance, to identify problems of knowledgetransfer related to its culture) is particularly interested in the language used incommunication within the organisation.

For the reasons outlined in the previous paragraph, some larger organisationshave attempted to put together corporate dictionaries to codify their unique lan-guage usage and to assist new employees during their training, but such effortsare infrequent and are ultimately of little use unless the dictionary captures thelinguistic knowledge accurately and efficiently and is updated frequently. Cor-porate dictionaries in book form are costly to print and distribute and may notbe utilised by employees. A corporate ‘Wiki’-style dictionary provides optionsfor codifying corporate language that previous approaches have not. Such a dic-tionary is written by lay persons rather than by lexicographers, tends to targetthe most sought-after information, may be modified and/or updated by usersand can be accessed and searched internationally through a corporate intranet.

‘Language officer’Marschan-Piekkari et al. (1999) offer the novel recommendation that MNCs

create an international human resources management position of ‘language offi-cer’. The duties of a person in this position would be to ‘co-ordinate and developlanguage policies; oversee their implementation; and assist in the auditing ofcurrent and future language needs’ (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999: 389). A lan-guage officer would also be involved in allocating resources for the acquisitionof language in training programmes, assigning personnel to global roles andthe appropriation of language skills through recruitment. The language offi-cer would also keep track of repatriated employees and utilise their foreignlanguage skills both formally and informally by mapping out and disseminat-ing knowledge of communication networks throughout the organisation. Inother words, the role of the language officer would be to take feedback fromsimple language management and create organisational language managementpolicies. By creating a language officer position, MNCs would be showing anawareness of and commitment to the value of linguistic knowledge within theorganisation.

Language ManagementBernard Spolsky (2004, 2006) defines language policy as consisting of language

practices, beliefs and management. Language management, which may also beconceptualised as language planning, is composed of management of languagesettings, language cultivation and language education (Spolsky, 2004, 2006).LMT, on the other hand, is able to go further by conceptualising language man-agement as a subcategory of knowledge management. In recent decades, corpo-rations have increasingly recognised the importance of knowledge managementon gaining and maintaining competitive advantage in business. However, manyinternational and internationalising organisations have thus far approached lan-guage management on a ‘fly by the seat of the pants’ ad hoc basis, implementing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


solutions to communication barriers as they arise in day-to-day practice. Thispaper proposes a solid conceptual approach to language management as anintegral part of organisations’ knowledge management strategies.

The offered list of best practices is a good start to organised language manage-ment strategy, but the identified practices are mainly limited to the managementof linguistic resources within the organisation. The model of language manage-ment offered by Nekvapil and Nekula (2006) would suggest that a languagemanager must simply look beyond the management of linguistic resources.Language settings and functions are important considerations, as well, since‘language and language policy both exist in . . . highly complex, interacting anddynamic contexts’ that include extra-linguistic political, demographic, social,psychological and bureaucratic factors (Spolsky, 2004: 6). Nekvapil and Nekula(2006) point out that this dynamic relationship is dialectical in nature betweenthe micro and macro levels of LMT.

The tables at the beginning of this paper offered a rudimentary descriptionof the language settings and functions within global organisations. However,the descriptions offered are not necessarily how all organisations should or dooperate. Nor do they present a comprehensive description of all relevant factors.For instance, with regard to functions, questions remain whether it is better forstandard operational and management procedures to be translated from onelanguage into the other languages of the organisation, or whether it makes moresense that such procedures be written individually into each of the organisation’soperating languages. With regard to corporate culture, research could be doneas to how to create a common corporate culture that transcends linguistic andcultural differences. Questions as to what should be included in such a cultureand how regional differences should be treated remain unanswered.

Another question that has relevance for human resources management,knowledge management and language management is with regard to what thebest ratio of expatriates to local personnel is, and whether expatriation shouldbe bidirectional (i.e. expatriation into the parent organisation from global sub-sidiaries). With regard to knowledge flows, in what language or languagesknowledge should be transferred between units, and whether the same knowl-edge should be transferred in more than one language also needs to be answered.Due to the complexity of such questions, it is argued here that more qualita-tive research should be done within multinational organisations. However, inorder for such research to be done effectively, constructive dialogue must beestablished to build trust between the corporate and academic worlds.

Language management is also concerned with issues surrounding cultivationof language. Each organisation constitutes a unique sociolinguistic setting andlanguage community. Multiple cultures and languages are represented withina global network of units within an MNC, but there is also a common languageand a common terminology unique to that organisation that identifies it as asingle sociolinguistic entity. Therefore, it seems beneficial to address whetherand to what degree the corpus of an organisation’s unique language can bedeveloped in order to enhance and maintain its corporate culture, as well ashow that language should best be transferred from one generation of employeesto the next. Furthermore, does the development of a common linguistic culture

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


facilitate knowledge transfer even when it must operate in multiple written andspoken languages? There is also the possibility for organisations and academicsto develop mutually beneficial relationships by co-conducting research intoissues of language management.

There are strategic considerations as well. Assuming the inseparability oflanguage and culture, separation of knowledge along different languages willlikely result in knowledge ‘gaps’ resulting in poor decision-making. Frequently,knowledge managed and transferred in the CCL is unrelated to the knowledgemanaged and transferred in one of the other operating languages of the or-ganisation. This results in different types of knowledge encoded in differentlanguages. Strategic decision-making can be improved not only through thegathering and transfer of knowledge in all the relevant languages, but also inthe overlapping of knowledge in the different languages. To provide an exam-ple, the reports prepared by expatriate managers in the PCL might deliberatelycover the same knowledge as the reports prepared by local managers in theCCL. In this way, the parent company decision makers are able to see differentangles of the same knowledge, rather than two or more, perhaps incompatible,pieces of knowledge.

With regard to language education, human resources management is respon-sible for determining who receives resources for language training. How thoseresources are allocated is largely a factor of what power dynamics are at playwithin an organisation. Human resources management could do more to createa policy that reinforces language management rather than the power differen-tial within the organisation. Regarding language training, it is important for anorganisation to determine what methods work best to create the proper balanceof employees who speak the operating languages and how those employeesare distributed within the organisation. In particular, language training offersopportunities for companies (who are usually not in the business of secondlanguage teaching) to develop partnerships with higher education. In order forsuch partnerships to develop, however, close cooperation between higher ed-ucation and business will require each to pay close attention to the pragmaticneeds of the other. As Ingram (1992, 1996), Fixman (1990), and others have sooften pointed out, language training programmes as they are traditionally runby higher education have rarely emphasised the intercultural communicationskills most beneficial to business environments, such as cross-cultural variationin politeness, what topics are ‘acceptable’, how conflict is resolved and howto use language in addressing issues of social stratification. Furthermore, dueto the unique character of each MNC, language-training partnerships must bedeveloped that directly address issues surrounding socialisation into the par-ticular linguistic culture of the target company. In other words, partnershipsbetween universities and MNCs could be tailored to the particular languagetraining strengths of the university and the particular needs of the businessorganisation.

In short, much more could be done to support organised language manage-ment. Inasmuch as language management is a form of knowledge management,it offers opportunities for the MNC to engage in practice that enhances its com-petitive advantage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


ConclusionIn an age of increasing internationalisation, languages and cultures are com-

ing in greater contact with each other than at any other time. At the forefront ofinternationalisation are MNCs, who operate in linguistically diverse environ-ments, and are themselves linguistically diverse networks of communities. Theneed to communicate effectively in such environments requires some degree oflinguistic commonality, which has given rise to English as a global language ofbusiness communication. However, as important as English is for global com-munications, it is insufficient for the many communication needs at the locallevel. Lambert (1990) and Phillipson (2001) both indicate that MNCs have con-tinued to fail to recognise the value of languages other than English, and asa result, perpetuate a corporate culture that disregards the linguistic diversityto be found throughout the planet. Conversely, the recent volume of researchpublished in international human resources journals indicates that corporate in-terest in the economic value of linguistic diversity is increasing. Along with suchinterest comes the need to develop creative and enlightened language planningto improve both the quality and value of intercultural communication.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Chris Allen Thomas, Educational

Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, 3700Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA ([email protected]).

ReferencesAndersson, U., Kock, S. and Thilenius, P. (1996) Moving from a domestic to a foreign

social network – The case of Finnish business professionals in California. The FinnishJournal of Business Economics 2, 141–153.

Barner-Rasmussen, W. (2003) Knowledge sharing in multinational corporations. A socialcapital perspective. Doctoral dissertation. Swedish School of Economics and BusinessAdministration, Helsinki. 169 p.

Barner-Rasmussen, W. and Bjorkman, I. (2003) The impact of language and interactionties on interunit social capital in the MNC. In W. Barner-Rasmussen (ed.) KnowledgeSharing in Multinational Corporations: A Social Capital Perspective. PhD thesis, no. 13.Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration.

Bartlett, C. and Johnson, C. (1998) Is business English a pidgin? Language and InterculturalTraining 16 (1), 4–6.

Beechler, S.L. and Bird, A. (eds) (1999) Japanese Multinationals Abroad. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Charles, M. and Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002) Language training for enhanced horizontalcommunication: A challenge for MNCs. Business Communication Quarterly 65 (2), 9–29.

Clegg, S.R. (1989) Frameworks of Power. London: Sage Publications.Cunningham, M.T. and Homse, E. (1986) Controlling the marketing-purchasing interface:

Resources development and organizational implications. Industrial Marketing Manage-ment 1 (2), 3–27.

Dhir, K.S. and Goke-Pariola, A. (2002) The case for language policies in multinationalcorporations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 7 (4), 241–251.

DiStefano, J.J. and Maznevski, M.L. (2000) Creating value with diverse teams in globalmanagement. Organizational Dynamics 29 (1), 45–61.

Feely, A.J. and Harzing, A.W. (2003) Language management in multinational companies.Cross-Cultural Management: An International Journal 10 (2), 37–52.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


Fixman, C.S. (1990) The foreign language needs of U.S.-based corporations. Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science 511, 25–46.

Garcia, O. and Otheguy, R. (1994) The value of speaking a LOTE in U.S. business. Annalsof the American Academy 532, 99–122.

Goodall, K. and Roberts, J. (2003) Only connect: Teamwork in the multinational. Journalof World Business 38 (2), 150–164.

Greensmith, C. (1994) Setting the standards: The importance of the language audit. Paperpresented at the Annual Conference on Languages and Communication for WorldBusiness and the Professions 13th Ypsilanti, MI, April 13–16.

Greve, A. (1995) Networks and entrepreneurship – An analysis of social relations, occupa-tional background, and use of contacts during the establishment process. ScandinavianJournal of Management 11 (1), 1–24.

Hagen, S. (1988) Languages in British Business: An Analysis of Current Needs. Newcastle:Polytechnic Products.

Henderson, J.K. (2005) Language diversity in international management teams. Interna-tional Studies of Management and Organization 35 (1), 62–82.

Hogan, E.A. and Overmyer-Day, L. (1994) The psychology of mergers and acquisitions.International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 9, 291–297.

Holden, N.J. (2002) Cross-Cultural Management: A Knowledge Management Perspective.Harlow: Pearson Education.

Ingram, D.E. (1986) Languages and the export economy. Paper to the Sixth BiennialNational Languages Conference of the Australian Federation of Modern LanguageTeachers Associations, Adelaide, September 5–9.

Ingram, D.E. (1992) Languages in the business community. Babel: Journal of the AustralianModern Language Teachers’ Associations 27 (1), 8–22.

Ingram, D.E. (1996) Languages in international business: Some implementation issues.Paper presented at the NLLIA Language Expo, 1996, Brisbane, July 19–21.

Jernudd, B.H. and Neustupny, J.V. (1987) Language planning: For whom? In L. Laforge(ed.) Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning (pp. 69–84).Quebec: Presses de l’Universite Laval.

Kaplan, R.B. and Baldauf, R.B. (2005) Editing contributed scholarly articles from a lan-guage management perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (1), 47–62.

Kapoor, A., Hansen, S-O. and Davidson, R.L. (1991) Negotiating Internationally – The Artof Networking. Hanko: Hangon Kirjapaino.

Koster, C. (2004) A Handbook on Language Auditing. Amsterdam: Editions De Werelt.Lambert, R. (1990) Foreign language use among international business graduates. Annals

of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 511, 47–59.Lester, T. (1994) Pulling down the language barrier. International Management July–

August, 42–44.Long, M.H. (2005) Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In M.H Long (ed.)

Second Language Needs Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D.E. and Welch, L.S. (1999) Adopting a common corpo-

rate language: IHRM implications. International Journal of Human Resource Management10 (3), 377–390.

Nekvapil, J. (2007) On the relationship between small and large Slavic languages. Inter-national Journal of the Sociology of Language 183 (1), 141–160.

Nekvapil, J. and Nekula, M. (2006) On language management in multinational companiesin the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning 7 (2–3), 307–327.

Neustupny, J.V. (2003) Japanese students in Prague. International Journal of the Sociologyof Language 162, 125–143.

Palo, U. (1997) Language skills in inter-unit communication of an internationalisingcompany: The case of Outokumpu. Master’s thesis, Helsinki School of Economics,Helsinki.

Phillipson, R. (2001) Global English and local language policies: What Denmark needs.Language Problems and Language Planning 25 (1), 1–24.

Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J. and Santti, R. (2005) Integration or disintegration?Human resource implications of the common corporate language decision in a cross-border merger. International Journal of Human Resource Management 16 (3), 333–347.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


Reeves, N. and Wright, C. (1996) Linguistic Auditing: A Guide to Identifying Foreign LanguageNeeds in Corporations. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Schneider, S.C. and Barsoux, J-L. (1997) Managing across Cultures. London: Prentice Hall.Scott, J. (1991) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London: Sage.Søderberg, A-M. and Holden, N. (2002) Rethinking cross-cultural management in a

globalizing business world. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 2 (1),103–121.

Spolsky, B. (2004) Language Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Spolsky, B. (2006) Territoriality, tolerance, and language education policy. Presented at

Nessa Wolfson Colloquium, University of Pennsylvania, October 18.Szarka, J. (1990) Networking and small firms. International Small Business Journal 8 (2),

10–22.Tollefson, J. (1991) Planning Language, Planning Inequality. New York: Longman.Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R. and Santti, R. (2005) Language and the circuits of power

in a merging multinational corporation. Journal of Management Studies 42 (3), 595–623.Van Hest, E. and Oud de-Glas, M. (1990) A Survey of Techniques Used in the Diagnosis and

Analysis of Foreign Language Needs in Trade and Industry. Luxemburg: Commission derEuropaischen Gemeinschaften.

Vandermeeren, S. (2005) Foreign language needs of business firms. In M.H. Long (ed.)Second Language Needs Analysis (pp. 159–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vihakara, A. (2006) Patience and Understanding: A Narrative Approach to Cross-CulturalCommunication in a Sino-Finnish Joint Venture, Series A-1. Turku, Finland: Publicationsof the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

19:

06 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice: Language Policy in Multilingual Organisations