Re-assessing the impact of the language factor in establishing trust in multilingual settings: in search of a new paradigm

As organisations are increasingly dispersed between head office and distant subsidiaries, employees are more and more likely to be working in multicultural/multilingual settings, in teams that are geographically remote and... [ view full abstract ]

As organisations are increasingly dispersed between head office and distant subsidiaries, employees are more and more likely to be working in multicultural/multilingual settings, in teams that are geographically remote and linked mainly through online networks. This crossing of multiple boundaries has created new challenges which are pivotal to the creation of trust necessary to drive successful organisational strategy and team building.
International - and, increasingly, intranational - work settings bring together individuals of diverse national origins and who speak different, and often several, languages. In such diverse contexts the use of a shared or common language, often English, makes communication possible and facilitates work processes and interactions. However, in organisations characterized by cultural and linguistic diversity the varying degrees of language knowledge and sociolinguistic competence can be detrimental to cooperation and trust-building. In spite of the prevalence of information and communication technology and the perceived interpersonal proximity (through email networks and videoconferencing) individuals are often unable to relate to one another on a personal level.

The impact of ‘language’ in building rapport and trust:
In order to build rapport and trust, an understanding of language use in interpersonal interactions is a critical factor.
The term “rapport management” refers to the use of language - verbal and non-verbal strategies - to promote, maintain or threaten harmonious social relations (Spencer-Oatey 2008:3). Alongside its transactional – or information-transferring – function, language has an interactional function which is primordial in creating rapport: “the goal of interactional speech is to communicate friendliness and goodwill, and to make the participants feel comfortable and unthreatened” (Spencer-Oatey 2008:2). It follows that common speech acts, such as orders and requests, apologies and compliments can be viewed from a rapport management perspective (Spencer-Oatey 2008:20). Consequently, “rapport threat” and “rapport enhancement” are the result of subjective evaluations which are not only based on the content of the message but on “interpretations and reactions to who says what under what circumstances” (Spencer-Oatey 2008:20). As language is a marker of individual and group identity and also has a symbolic function, inter-group tension or collusion between native and non-native speakers, (and contrasting attitudes of monolinguals and multilinguals) may hinder or foster trust building. The failure to understand the role of interactional speech for socialization processes can therefore lead to relational breakdown.

Culture, language, identity: a new paradigm:
In international business studies and cross-cultural management, the concept of ‘culture’ has traditionally been associated with national cultures conceptualized as static and bounded entities. Such essentialist conceptions of culture do not account for the complexity of the dynamic and changing environments of today’s work settings characterized by “cultural diversity, change over time and space, shifting multiple intersecting identities and agency” (Nathan, 2015: 102).
As in the case of ‘culture’ in cross-cultural management and International Business studies, the complexity of ‘language’ in cross-cultural communication and language learning has equally been disregarded. This can be explained by two factors. The first is grounded in the predominance of the essentialist perspective and the attraction of simplification. The second is the assumption that the mere fact of sharing a working language or lingua franca - often English - is the solution of choice. This, coupled with the commonly held notion that English is widely spoken and transparently understood, does not take into account the impact of micro-variation in language use and the various layers of an individual’s language repertoire.
With the emphasis on successful interaction between individuals working in multilingual/multicultural teams in international organizations, this essentialist nation-based paradigm is inadequate today. In a world of cultural complexity and global cultural flows, language has come to be conceptualized in terms of dynamic and mobile resources that individuals draw on as they perform multiple roles. Blommaert (2010: 1) writes of the need for sociolinguistics in the age of globalization to “unthink its classic distinctions and biases and to rethink itself as a sociolinguistics of mobile resources, framed in terms of trans-contextual networks, flows and movements.” In today’s context communication and intercultural competence can no longer be measured in terms of native-speaker proficiency and conformity to national models (Cohen, Kassis-Henderson and Lecomte, 2015).
If culture is “the sharing of perceptions, values and practice” (G J Hofstede 2015), in order to work successfully with individuals representing other ‘cultures’ - national, professional, organisational, educational - people need to know what they share and where the potential ‘intersections’ to build bridges with others may lie. To paraphrase Kimberlie Crenshaw, a prominent scholar on intersectionality, ‘recognizing that identity politics (to be understood here in the sense of ‘negotiating cultural identity’) takes place where categories intersect seems more fruitful than talking about the categories themselves’ (Crenshaw, 1991:1299). On the contrary, in the cultural dimension approach, the categories alone drive the theoretical model. Categories as such are creators of boundaries, which are then viewed as sources of problems in organizations. We posit that, if one uses the concept of intersectionality, then boundaries are no longer synonymous with barriers, and are therefore not necessarily problematic if individuals are sufficiently aware of where they are and how they can be crossed.
As each individual is made up of a ‘mosaic’ of ‘tiles’ - to use the imagery evoked by Chao and Moon (2005) - different facets of self-identity become salient in different contexts and encounters. These tiles fall into three main categories: demographic, geographic and associative. Although this multifaceted model of apprehending identity may, on the surface, add additional layers of complexity, it in fact potentially ‘simplifies’ understanding of the other by providing additional potential points of intersections. This finding of commonalities – and understanding the multiple aspects of (self) identity - also demystifies difference, facilitating the establishment of common ground and rapport (Cohen and Kassis-Henderson, 2012).
We suggest it may be more constructive to make these ‘tiles’ – or boundaries - visible, in order to facilitate intersections – or boundary crossings - in order to better seek out compatibility and shared areas of interest on which to build working relations. As Kimberlie Crenshaw aptly wrote: “Ignoring difference within groups contributes to tension among groups” (Crenshaw, 1991:1242).
This opens up an increased, yet often untapped, reservoir of language diversity within each individual. The individual, therefore, has both a linguistic and cultural repertoire which, when viewed together, are what Claire Kramsch refers to as a modern version of multilingualism. She defines this as “the ability to use several linguistic systems in everyday life and to draw on several cultural contexts of experience in order to put forth several identities, such as immigrant, employee, mother, woman, Spanish speaker or English speaker” (Kramsch, 2012:5).

Contribution of the research:
Our contribution is to show the need to look at language-related issues through a more complex lens. In today’s world, with changing demographics and ICT affecting communication, speech communities are less fixed and stable than in the past and recent research has shown the emergence of a changing, more tolerant, approach to language use in multilingual settings (Blommaert 2010).
Whereas in traditional monolingual settings out-group members with ‘foreign’ accents may be stigmatized, not trusted, and experience status loss, in multicultural /multilingual settings, diversity in speech style and communication norms are increasingly accepted and contribute to positive interpersonal relationships and trust building.

References

Blommaert, J. (2010) The Sociolinguistics of Globalization, Cambridge University Press.

Cohen L., Kassis-Henderson J., (2012), "Language Use in Establishing Rapport and Building Relations: Implications for International Teams and Management Education", Revue Management et Avenir, July-August, N° 55, pp 185-207.

Cohen, L., Kassis-Henderson, J. and Lecomte, P. (2015) ‘Language diversity in management education: Towards a multilingual turn’, Holden, N., Michailova S., and Tietze S. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management, Routledge.

Crenshaw, K (1991) ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color’, Stanford Law Review, 43(6):1241-1299.

Hofstede, G.J. (2015) ‘Culture’s causes: the next challenge,’ Cross Cultural Management, an International Journal, 22 (4): 545 – 569.

Kassis-Henderson J., (2010), "The Implications of Language Boundaries on the Development of Trust in International Management Teams", In Saunders M. N. K. , Skinner D., Dietz G. (Eds), , Organizational Trust : A Cultural Perspective, Cambridge Companion to Management, Cambridge University Press, pp 358-382.

Kramsch, C. (2012) ‘Authenticity and legitimacy in multilingual SLA’ Critical Multilingualism, an interdisciplinary journal, Vol. 1 No. 1.

Nathan, G. (2015) ‘A non-essentialist model of culture: Implications of identity, agency and structure within multinational/multicultural organizations’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 15 (1): 101 – 124.

Spencer- Oatey H. (2008) Culturally Speaking, Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, Continuum International Publishing Group, London