Horizontal communication between subsidiaries of the same multinational corpo
ration (MNC) is a Problem faced by staff as the demands for communicating
across borders are pushed downwards in the organizational hierarchy. Although
the choice of English as the common corporate language alleviates some of the hor
izontal communication problems, it does not solve them all-particularly not when
many subsidiaries are located in non-English speaking countries. In that situation,
horizontal communication between subsidiaries can be a significant casualty.
In a study of communication within a Finland-based MNC, Kone Elevators,
interviews with staff globally revealed problems not only for non-native speakers,
but also for native speakers of English. Illustrative interview data suggests that cor
porate training schemes should focus on the broad spectrum of international com
munication rather than on increasing a systematic knowledge of any one language.
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1990). Matrix management: Not a structure, a frame of mind. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 138-147.
2.
Bartlett, C., & Johnson, C. (1998). Is business English a pidgin? Language and intercultural training, 16(1), 4-6.
3.
Charles, M. ( 1994). Layered negotiations in business: Interdependencies between discourse and the business relationship. PhD thesisBirmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.
4.
Charles, M. (1995). Organizational power in business negotiations . In K. Ehlich & J. Wagner (Eds.). The discourse of business negotiation (pp. 151-176). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
5.
Charles, M. (1996). Business negotiations: Interdependence between discourse and the business relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 15(1), 19-36.
6.
Charles, M. (1998). Forum: International perspectives on business communication research. Europe: Oral business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 61(3), 85-93.
7.
Crick, D. (1999). An investigation into SME's use of languages in their export operations. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 5(1), 19-31.
8.
Forsgren, M. (1997). The advantage paradox of the multinational corporation . In I. Bjorkman, & M. Forsgren (Eds.). The nature of the international firm: Nordic contributions to international business research (pp. 411-432). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Ghoshal, S., Korine, H., & Szulanski, G. (1994). Interunit communication in multinational corporations . Management Science, 40, 96-110.
11.
Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473-496.
12.
Hofstede, G. ( 1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related valuesBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13.
Huhta, M. (1997). The dynamics of language training: From an element of cost to an investment in communication. Licentiate thesisHelsinki: University of Helsinki.
14.
Kanter, R. (1983). The change masters: Corporate entrepreneurs at work. London: Counterpoint.
15.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 625-645.
16.
Kone Annual Report (2000).
17.
Lahtinen, M. (2000). Language skilled employees in multinationals: Implications to communication and international human resource management . Master's thesis. Helsinki: HelsinkiSchool of Economics Press.
18.
Lampi, M. (1986). Linguistic components of strategy in business negotiations. Helsinki School of Economics Studies B-85. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.
19.
Lester, T. (1994). Pulling down the language barrier. International Management, July-August, 42-44.
20.
Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1999). From business correspondence to message exchange: The notion of genre in business communication. Jyväskylä : Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä.
21.
Marschan, R. ( 1996). New structural forms and internal communication in multinationals. Helsinki: HelsinkiSchool of Economics Press.
22.
Marschan, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1997). Language: The forgotten factor in multinational management? European Management Journal, 15(5), 591-598.
23.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D.E., & Welch, L.S. (1999a). Adopting a common corporate language: IHRM implications . The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(3), 377-390.
24.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D.E., & Welch, L.S. (1999b). In the shadow: The impact of language on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International Business Review, 8(4), 421-440.
25.
Nickerson, C. (1998.) Corporate culture and the use of written English within British subsidiaries in the Netherlands. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 281-294.
26.
Nickerson, C. (1999). The use of English in electronic mail in a multinational corporation. In F Bargiela-Chiappini, & C. Nickerson (Eds.). Writing business: Genres, media and discourses (pp. 35-56). London: Longman.
27.
Nickerson, C. (2000). Playing the corporate language game. Utrecht studies in language and communication. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
28.
Palo, U. (1997). Language skills in inter-unit communication of an internationalising company: The case of Outokumpu. Master's thesis. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.
29.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.
30.
Pilbeam, A. (1998). English as a tool for international communication: Some cultural and linguistic implications. Language and Intercultural Training, (1), 7-9.
31.
Poncini, G. (2002). Business relationships and roles in a multicultural group: An investigation of discourse at an Italian company's meetings of its international distributors. PhD thesisBirmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.
32.
Reeves, N., & Wright, C. ( 1996). Linguistic auditing: A guide to identifying foreign language communication needs in corporations. Clevedon : Multilingual Matters Ltd.
33.
Stohl, C. (1994). Organizational communication. Connectedness in actionBeverly Hills: Sage Publications .
34.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Marschan-Piekkari, R., & Säntti, R. (2000). Language as power in post-merger integration: The case of Merita-Nordbanken. Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the European International Business Academy (EIBA), December 10-12.
35.
Vasseur, M-T., Bremer, K., & Roberts, C. (1996). Managing understanding from a minority perspective . In K. Bremer, C. Roberts, M,T. Vasseur, M. Simonot, & P. Broeder (Eds.). Achieving understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters (pp. 65-108). London: Longman .
36.
Yin, R. ( 1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.
37.
Yli-Jokipii, H. (1998). Forum: International perspectives on business communication research. Europe: Business writing. Business Communication Quarterly, 61(3), 94-100.
