Language Diversity Between Multinationals And Their Subsidiaries

Nurmi, Bosch-Sijtsema, Sivunen, & Fruchter, (2009) consider language as a vital factor affecting high performance teamwork in multicultural virtual teams in a corporate environment. This case study has been adapted from the paper “Shifting the faultlines of language: A quantitative functional-level exploration of language use in MNC subsidiaries” by (Barner-Rasmussen & Aarnio, 2011). The paper aims to explore language diversity in a multinational (MNC) corporation’s setting. This was accomplished by conducting a quantitative hypothesis-testing study based on the survey data collected from 61 Finnish subsidiaries of foreign MNCs.

The collected data provided some significant results. Language differed department-wise, as well as, in between the Head-Quarters (HQ), sister concerns and partners. Figure 1 shows that even though 90% of the MNCs studied have English as their official corporate language (LA1), a noticeable proportion of the sample subsidiaries’ communication with sister units and local partners is carried out in other languages (LA2). The preferred language of communication with local partners is the subsidiary host country’s language – Finnish in this case.

Deeper insights in to the situation, highlighting diversity of language with respect to departments in focal subsidiary relationships to Nordic sister units, European sister units and local firms, respectively. On average, an LA2 was used in 28% of cases, however this increased to 47% in the case of communication with Nordic sister units and decrease to only 9% for European sister units.

The environment of multilingualism forces subsidiaries to incur extensive translation costs. On the other hand, an MNC’s inherent language incompetence also forces it to turn to local subsidiaries in order to run a profitable business. According to (Barner-Rasmussen & Aarnio, 2011), language hierarchy in MNCs thus appears to be a two-way street.

7 Teams – 1 Problem: Miscommunication.

Adapted from the paper “Miscommunication in International Virtual Workplaces: A Report on a Multicase Study” by (Brewer, 2010), which takes in to account the experiences of miscommunication employees from different types of international organizations, across 9 countries. The paper addresses the issue of cross-cultural miscommunication and its implications, based on data collected across organizational and national boundaries.

Results were collected from interviews of all 22 participants from 3 companies, based on seven cross-communication cases (illustrated in Figure 5). The results show that participants from all three organizations stated that language was a source of their problems, “and it was the largest source of problems”. Language included issues of fluency, pronunciation, connotation, and the ability to communicate key points. Overall 64% of participants mentioned language as the number-one factor in miscommunication (Table 1), 54% identified it as the primary problem resulting from cross-cultural communication (Table 2), and 45% observed it to be the most frequent problem when comparing international to domestic communication (Table 3).

In order to resolve the factors of miscommunication highlighted in this study, one proposed solution by (Brewer, 2010) was metacommunication or ‘communication about communication’, in between participants. In virtual teams, Managers should create a platform for open communication to discuss inter-team communication preferences, without participants taking personal offence. Furthermore, employees in a virtual workplace should be encouraged to always refer back to communications of importance; this addition to the communication process helps identify information that may have been missed or misinterpreted earlier.

Talent Outsourcing in India

India has quickly made a mark in the Information Technology (IT) market, with its technologically advanced setting, cheap labor and out of the box solutions. For these advantages, many foreign companies have strategically outsourced their IT related projects to Indians. However, not all was accomplished without a few obstacles, the biggest concerning language.

Cohen & El-Sawad (2007), in their paper, talk about the difficulties faced by a financial services company operating in UK, outsourcing their call center to Mumbai, India. The problems faced pertained mainly to the cultural differences, especially the ‘Language Barrier’. The UK representatives commended the Indians for having even better English than themselves, however, their issues related to how their Indian colleagues expressed themselves. According to an English representative “...the normal person on the street in the UK wouldn’t necessarily use…” proper English words and grammar.

The Indians were very motivated to change this aspect, to ensure the customers and their English Colleagues communicated comfortably. To overcome this gap, the Mumbai team took extensive language and cultural trainings focusing on protocols, around accent and nuances. The aim in refining their language in this way was to blend in and ultimately, to appear ‘less Indian’.

Salminen-Karlsson (2014) addresses a similar concern of language in a Swedish-Indian collaboration towards IT development. The total of 103 interviews were conducted in a company where offshoring of qualified IT work was done in virtual teams. Although the corporate language of the multinational was English, the daily business took place in between Swedish employees and customers, speaking Swedish. A deeper look shows that the language problem was caused by the Indian pronunciation, which was difficult to understand sometimes. This was initially overcome by opting for written communication (email), rather than a verbal one. In addition, the Swedish wanted to be a part of the hiring process of new Indians to ensure their English pronunciations were understood by them. Lastly, and most importantly, this language barrier was overcome by communities of practice; mutual engagement in problem solving and, the Swedish investment in fostering a sense of belonging in the Indian newcomers.

Conclusion

Challenges of Language in Virtual Cultural Teams (VCTs), how to overcome them and real-life case study – these three are the main pillars of this report. Language is the main component in all types of communication whether it’s verbal or virtual, and for a Virtual Cultural Team (VCTs), it could be a huge obstacle as showed in the challenge section of the report. In terms of telephone or skype conversation, the tone of the participants plays a great role in understanding the reaction whereas in terms of Instant message or email, it is completely missing, hence might lead to confusion or misunderstanding. Considering English as an international language and enforcing as the standard language in the team might stop some of the team members to convey their opinions with anxiety or hesitant, thus might end up demoralizing the member.

The solution to the language barrier in Virtual Cultural Team (VCTs) is KISS (Keep it Short & Simple), meaning the communication between the team members should be simple and in a manner that is understandable to everyone. Moreover, there should be some ground rules and guidelines how to communication, which words to use, what should be the structure. This will result in better collaborative skills, context will be clear to everyone and the common goal of the communication would be understood by the members. Last but not the least, accountability of a communication is important for transparency and enhanced focus on common and shared goal is necessary to make the Virtual Cultural Team (VCTs) a success.