Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Language is now firmly on the research agenda for international business and management. However, although attention is now being given to the effects of language on social interactions, rather than purely focusing on language as a matter of strategic priority, there is relatively little known about how language contributes to Othering processes in which employees experience marginalisation and exclusion as a result of evaluations of their linguistic competences. This conceptual paper highlights a number of ways in which linguistic evaluations drive such processes, and particularly draws on postcolonial perspectives in order to explore language as a tool of marginalisation and oppression. We demonstrate that language is closely tied to ideological constructions of the ideal worker, and highlight that English-language competence in particular, is often positioned as an essential skill for managerial roles, which can lead to exclusion of those who do not confirm to this expectation. Additionally, we draw on research which explores language as a key component of social identity, and thus an important factor in the construction of in-groups and out-groups within the workplace, in order to demonstrate not only the influence of context on the salience of language as a marker of identity, but also how language intersects with other identity characteristics in processes of exclusion. We conclude by demonstrating the possibilities to resist Othering in order to create more inclusive workplace environments.

Keywords

Exclusion language marginalisation othering postcolonial theory resistance

Introduction

The idea of managing across differences is central to Cross-Cultural Management (CCM). Traditionally, the key focus within the field has been the idea of differences between nation states. Foundational theories of CCM, such as Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions of culture, have contributed to the reification of such differences across national cultures. Although these differences have frequently been viewed as sources of problems and discord within organisations, differences can also be an opportunity for learning and growth (e.g., Stahl et al., 2010). To fully embrace the possibilities for development offered by difference, it is important to understand categories of difference and their application in creating in-groups and out-groups (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) and in the construction of the ‘ideal worker’ (Acker, 1992). Deviating from (in)visible norms can lead to Othering phenomena, where particular groups are excluded and marginalised on the basis of particular characteristics. As Fitzsimmons (2014) points out, there is nothing inherently problematic about out-group membership. It only becomes so when in-group members use this to position out-group members as “them” who are inferior to “us”, which occurs in Othering, “a process of making others more alien than they actually are, mainly in order to affirm people’s own identity and power positions” (Mahadevan, 2017: 29).

Scholars (e.g., Jameson, 2007) have pointed out that a wide range of aspects of social identity are salient in interpersonal interactions within international business (IB) contexts, and a focus on national cultures is simply one source of difference among many (Mahadevan et al., 2020). Additionally, such categories are not fixed across domains (Fitzsimmons, 2014), but can change over time, which is an important factor when understanding how social groups are constructed (Guttormsen, 2018). Social identity is an on-going process and not a static concept (Hozhabrossadat, 2015) and therefore, Otherness in the workplace is constituted in practice by all parties involved in an interaction, rather than beforehand by the context, or by being imposed by one individual over another (Hazel and Haberland, 2013).

Although Romani et al. (2018) note that language is receiving increasing attention in the critical CCM literature as it is intertwined with cultural differences and ascribed hierarchies, we argue that language has not yet received sufficient attention as a source of Otherness, despite linguistic identity having already been argued to be an important component of social identity (Bordia and Bordia, 2015). We argue that an explicit interrogation of the role of language in Othering is overdue, given our agreement with Sacks (1989: 8), who forcefully argues that “to be defective in language, for a human being, is one of the most desperate of calamities, for it is only through language that we enter fully into our human estate and culture”.

Beeler and Lecomte (2017) have previously pointed out the ‘dark side of language’ in which hegemonic linguistic practices in organisations can lead to the marginalisation of employees. They emphasise dialogical processes within cross-cultural teamwork, and specifically highlight “in-group behaviour based on language” (2017: 56) which can have negative consequences for both team cohesion and individual experience. However, as they do not take an explicitly identity-based perspective, in this article we build on the points raised to investigate language as a source of difference which may lead to Othering within organisational contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to address the following objectives. Firstly, we aim to explore how language differences can lead to Othering processes by drawing on postcolonial theory, the concept of ideal worker and social identity theory. We are particularly interested in looking at various levels of language use and the ways in which different language ideologies can act as mechanisms for in/exclusion. Secondly, we will consider the implications of language-based Othering for various workplace settings by reviewing existing research. Lastly, we will propose strategies which can reduce the process of Othering in cross-cultural workplace contexts. While our emphasis is on changing mindsets and fostering inclusive work practices amongst those who enact Othering processes, we also point to the possibilities of resistance by those who are Othered.

We begin by providing a definition of language, before turning to social constructions of the Other. Following this, we introduce postcolonial perspectives on Othering. While the CCM literature has previously used postcolonial theory as a lens for discussing Othering, language has been largely overlooked in favour of exploring culture more broadly, despite early recognition of its importance (e.g., Jack, 2004). However, studies drawing on postcolonial theory outside the domain of business and management have extensively considered the role of language in constructing subaltern Others (e.g., Spivak, 1988; wa Thiongo’o, 1986). We therefore draw on this tradition to interrogate the relationship between language and Othering within the workplace. We also argue that the concept of the ‘ideal worker’ (Acker, 1992, 2006) is related to colonial assumptions, as many of the associated ideas about the constitutive characteristics of the ideal worker are rooted in colonial mindsets. To complement this perspective, we then discuss social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) which has been used within the language-sensitive IB literature to explore in-groups and out-groups (e.g., Hinds et al., 2014; Tenzer et al., 2014). Following this, we identify how language leads to various distinct types of Othering processes within the workplace. Finally, we conclude by reflecting on how linguistic Othering can be resisted, in order to create more inclusive organisations.

Language and the social construction of the other

Language is frequently understood as “a system comprised of vocabulary and rules of grammar that allows people to engage in verbal communication” (e.g., Jackson, 2020: 377).

Language, along with communication in its broader sense, plays a pivotal role in shaping social realities (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). It is through language that power structures, multiple meanings and ideologies are created, challenged, reinforced and negotiated. Furthermore, the way people speak and interact influences how individuals perceive one another, underscoring the importance of acquiring and strategically mastering dominant language repertoires, as they can determine social positioning and institutional credibility (Roberts, 2021; Śliwa and Johansson, 2014). To understand language praxis in its social context, there is a need to go beyond linguistic features and grammatical competence. For example, for sociolinguists “the sociology of language focuses upon the entire gamut of topics related to the social organization of language behavior, including not only language usage per se, but also language attitudes and overt behaviors toward language and language users” (Fishman, 1997: 25), as language impacts all aspects of society. Ochs (1996: 407) asserts that language is a “human medium for constructing a social order and a philosophy of taste, causality, knowledge, and experience”.

Furthermore, language is a visible legacy of colonial structures. We agree with Seremani and Clegg (2016: 174) that “Language, as the keystone of knowledge systems, cannot but be embedded in power relations”. Accordingly, language hierarchies exist in which European colonial languages – particularly English – are afforded the greatest prestige. For example, Mahadevan (2017) noted that students in her CCM class in Germany did not appear to attribute value to the ability to speak Greek or Arabic in their familial lives.

Considering this, we follow an understanding that language – in addition to being a medium of communication – has social, situational, ideological and political underpinnings. In addition to its descriptive dimension as a mechanism for communication, language possesses a hegemonial dimension, in which language cannot be understood as neutral, and that behind assumptions about prestige often lie the assumptions of dominant groups (Tietze, 2008), who seek to legitimise their own identities.

Guttormsen (2015) reminds us that identity cannot be understood by self alone – necessarily it has to be understood in a dialectical relationship with the construction of the Other. Furthermore, the interplay of the Self and Other is highly context-specific. Thus, when exploring Othering processes, which are created by the rules of behaviour set by socially powerful groups (Krumer-Nevo and Sidi, 2012), there is a need to consider the role of both conceptual space and physical location. Additionally, we need to explore Otherness across multiple layers (Guttormsen, 2018) to understand the ways in which identity categories can intersect and be understood in numerous ways depending on salience and context. Otherness is a multifaceted construct that can take on diverse forms across different spaces, ranging from local to national and supranational (Guttormsen, 2018), and it can be shaped by both material and non-material markers.

Language is a key factor in shaping Otherness. Firstly, it is through language that we socially construct the Other and create (in)visible social boundaries. And secondly, language can also serve as a marker for drawing boundaries between different language-speakers due to prevailing language ideologies and differing linguistic abilities. Since language is not a fixed notion, individuals may be defined as belonging to differing language communities whereby language may play a role in assigning (or not assigning) membership to a particular language community, either by providing a person with solidarity or by giving a person the role of Other, leading to exclusion and alienation (Hozhabrossadat, 2015). Drawing on an intersectional perspective (Zander et al., 2010) and a dialectical approach (Martin and Nakayama, 2015), Kassis-Henderson and Cohen (2020) argue that although superior language skills are often assumed to confer status and privilege, this is a rather simplistic understanding which does not take into consideration other intersecting identity characteristics. Based on the work of dialogic scholars (e.g., Bakhtin, 1982; Baxter, 2004), the dialectical approach emphasises a dynamic, fluid and ongoing process whereby a multitude of intersecting bi-polar forces “individual/societal, differences/similarities, privilege/disadvantage, etc.” (Martin and Nakayama, 2015: 18), are simultaneously interwoven, placing the inequities of social realities in the limelight. The dialectical perspective helps us to understand the intersecting variables that frame interactions, and to track the shifting dialectics when communicating across various language identities. The intersectionality approach (Zander et al., 2010) provides the lens for understanding an individual's mixtures of identities within the social system, and the relative importance of one linguistic characteristic over another, evoking the power structures and tensions at play.

By emphasising language as an aspect of identity, and incorporating perspectives from linguistic anthropology and postcolonial theory to demonstrate how language contributes to Othering processes, we contribute to broadening the theoretical perspectives used in CCM, in line with Jackson’s (2021) call. Additionally, this creates space to challenge the cultural imperialism that is perpetuated by the Englishization of much cross-cultural scholarship (Jackson and Primecz, 2019), that entails language issues being frequently overlooked even in critical work (Wilmot and Tietze, 2023).

Postcolonial perspectives on othering

Within the CCM literature, one of the primary lenses which has been used to explore Othering processes has been that of postcolonial theory. While there is not a single unified definition of what postcolonial theory is, within the management literature it is frequently understood as a “mode of critique and form of intellectual practice” (Westwood, 2006: 92) which is “concerned with revealing continuities and persistent effects of the colonial project and colonial experience in contemporary ways of knowing and acting in the world” (Westwood, 2004: 57).

Orientalism (Holliday, 2011; Said, 1978) is one of the primary conceptual frameworks in postcolonial studies that seeks to explain the construction of the Other. Work on Orientalism focuses on understanding the power a/symmetries that are reproduced based on abstractly designated cultural characteristics, in which the image of the foreign Other is rooted in the prejudices of the Western Self. Holliday (2011: 69), for example, defines Othering as the imagining of a “demonized image of ‘them’, or the Other, which supports an idealized image of ‘us’, or the Self”. According to this view, cross-cultural encounters are underpinned by power relations with reference to Western hegemony, perpetuated through, for example, intercultural training programs which tend to approach ‘cultures’ and communication differences from orientalist perspectives (Holliday, 2011).

Although postcolonial perspectives have been used to understand identity work (e.g., Srinivas, 2013), the emphasis has typically been given to the concept of cultural Others, rather than to those who experience Othering as result of language – although notable exceptions include Vaara et al. (2005), Van Laer and Janssen (2011) and Boussebaa et al. (2014). The concept of subalterns provides a valuable lens for discussing Othering processes and the imposition of certain language ideologies. Subalterns typically refer to minority social classes or less powerful groups who are, to varying degrees, denied a voice (Mahadevan, 2017), albeit with some exceptions (see Srinivas, 2013). Within our research context, subalterns can be understood as language-minoritised groups (Flores, 2013). A linguistic approach to subalterns focuses on identifying how certain language ideologies and language policies (Davis and Frink, 2014) marginalise the language practices of subaltern populations (Holliday, 2011; Said, 1978). For example, research on Indian call centres (Boussebaa et al., 2014; Mirchandani, 2012) shows how acquiring different English accents and using European aliases when dealing with American or European clients is associated with legitimacy. This practice of mimicry is not harmless, as it involves identity work of imitation to such an extent that Indian agents may fear potential negative consequences if clients discover their origins (Mirchandani, 2012). Despite possessing professional knowledge, subaltern employees thus may be disadvantaged due to their language proficiency and accents, which is why they may attempt to suppress those identity markers altogether.

Kassis-Henderson and Cohen (2020) present the case of an African American female lawyer, who, on arrival in France, was surprised to find herself seen initially as purely ‘American’, de-emphasising other aspects of her identity, in contrast to her experience in the USA. Therefore, although she was categorised as Other by the French with whom she interacted, she experienced this Othering in a positive manner. Earlier work by Hosoda and Stone-Romero (2010) highlights the privileging effects of particular accents in certain contexts, and here, the American accent of the lawyer and her less proficient French led her to being positioned as ‘an American in Paris’, and thus part of an elite. However, as her French improved and became more fluent, and her American accent became less obvious, she noticed that people assumed that she was from the Antilles, or French West Indies, and started to treat her with less respect. Subsequently, she experienced stigmatisation on the basis of race, rather than the privilege that her American accent had initially brought. This example illustrates that it was the superior French language skills that led others to perceive her as belonging to a more stigmatised French Antillais community, still contending with its postcolonial legacy.

As illustrated above, language is one inheritance of colonialism in many parts of the world. The coloniser’s language was – and still is – often used to suppress the local language(s). Linguistic imperialism, a term introduced by Phillipson (1992), is useful here and it refers to a construct “devised to account for linguistic hierarchisation, to address issues of why some languages come to be used more and others less” and “what structures and ideologies facilitate such processes” (Phillipson, 1997: 238). Such linguistic hierarchies can take various forms, but they typically mirror the norms of more powerful groups. Linguistic hierarchies are not exclusively based on language varieties; they can also be predicated on differences in dialects, accents, and levels of in/formality in language use. Such differences carry significant power implications, shaping the ways in which people interact and position themselves relative to one another (e.g., Irvine and Gal, 2000). Globalisation has facilitated the spread of English, which represents one form of linguistic imperialism, and its power as a lingua franca is further sustained by many transnational institutions that use English as the official language. In relation to postcolonial theory, Phillipson (2008: 36) argues that “English contributes to the imperial production of subjectivities, through communicative networks, creating a synergy that integrates structural and ideological elements in the new world ‘order.’”.

In the ideology of linguistic hierarchisation, the belief is that English is positively evaluated over other languages and is hierarchically seen as being more prestigious than other languages in many countries and workplace contexts (Lønsmann, 2014). Through this language hierarchisation, and in the face of heightened globalisation, English has become the dominant language of international business and of higher education, particularly in the domain of management (e.g., Neeley, 2017; Tietze, 2004; Tietze and Dick, 2013). This widespread use of English over other languages in non-anglophone countries, referred to as Englishization (Boussebaa and Brown, 2017), has made individuals vulnerable to inequalities in fluency and precision in interactional contexts (Phillipson, 2006), entailing linguistic Othering. In particular, Englishization has created marginalisation and exclusion for individuals who are not familiar with the language, especially when it involves professional jargon (Gaibrois, 2018) and specialist language (Michaliski and Śliwa, 2021; Tietze et al., 2016; Vigier and Bryant, 2023), enhancing and intensifying colonising effects (Tietze and Dick, 2013). This neo-colonial domination (Boussebaa and Tienari, 2019; Tietze, 2022) puts non-English speakers at a disadvantage to fully comprehend and adapt to an anglophone system, which may not necessarily correspond to their (organisational/higher education) cultures and practices (Vigier and Bryant, 2023).

Even though postcolonial understandings of Othering processes provide valuable contributions to exploring language as an identity characteristic which can lead to social categorisations, postcolonial perspectives only illuminate a partial picture of language-based Othering processes. Given that such perspectives emphasise historical relations between nations, they lend themselves to a focus on the use of specific national languages – frequently English – and do not fully enable us to account for the full repertoire of language activities which individuals use within the workplace.

Indeed, as a result of the colonial project, within the same nation-state, languages and their relative status can be understood very differently when they intersect with other diversity dimensions. For instance, Sambajee (2016) provides an example of how in Mauritius, French and English, as the languages of the colonisers, remain higher status languages than Kreol, and argues that “reinforced boundaries between ethnicities and the ethnicization of Kreol to the advantage of colonial languages note a deep colonization of the mind together with an increased pressure to look more like the colonizer” (p. 223). Essentially, although Kreol is spoken by most Mauritians, it has remained a lower status language than both French and English because it was historically associated with those of African descent.

Therefore, although our understanding and discussion of such activities are informed by postcolonial theory, we also draw more broadly on literatures which address identity to support our discussion and broaden our understanding of Othering processes. The concept of the ‘ideal worker’, in particular, is relevant to our discussion because, as we will argue next, many of the ideals are rooted in colonial assumptions.

Language and the ‘ideal worker’

The concept of the ideal worker provides a useful heuristic for identifying taken-for-granted assumptions and different social identity characteristics. Numerous studies (e.g., Acker, 1992, 2006) have identified characteristics which are associated with the, somewhat imaginary, ideal worker. Such characteristics are often argued to include being white (Rosette et al., 2008), male (Acker, 1992; Peterson, 2007), older (Atkinson et al., 2021; Riach, 2007), of a higher economic class (Ashley, 2010), able-bodied (Jammaers et al., 2016), and without caregiving commitments (Bardoel et al., 2011; Benschop et al., 2013). These ‘ideals’ have their roots in colonial logics, resulting in racial and gendered hierarchies (e.g., Brumley, 2014; Davies and Fink, 2014; Leggett, 2010). Failure to adhere to the established ‘ideals’ often leads to Othering and the categorisation of employees as unsuitable for management. We argue that dominant language skills are also an important component of perceptions of the ideal worker (see also recent study by Theunissen and Van Laer, 2023), particularly for those in management positions (e.g., Fredriksson et al., 2006). Just like other social identity characteristics, certain linguistic ideals can be deployed for Self/Other positioning.

Several studies (e.g., Froese et al., 2016; Madera et al., 2014; Neeley, 2017) have considered the relationships between language skills and turnover rates, suggesting that employees who lack language competences have higher turnover intentions and feel less embedded within the organisation. A prominent example of the ideal manager as an English-speaking employee is demonstrated in Rakuten’s introduction of a company-wide ‘Englishnization’ programme. This programme required all employees to achieve a minimum standard of proficiency in English (Neeley, 2017). Those who failed to meet this language requirement, regardless of their previous job performance or other professional skills, were required to leave the company. In this specific context, the native-speaking English employees enjoyed what Neeley and Dumas (2016) refer to as ‘unearned status gain’.

Additionally, Piekkari et al. (2014) discuss the concept of ‘language ceilings and walls’, which describe how language skills can create barriers to hierarchical career progression, but can also block horizontal moves within the same organisation. Crucially, Piekkari and colleagues (2014) highlight that although they conceptualise such terms as androgynous, some individuals may experience ‘double glazing’ – the simultaneous existence of multiple potential barriers to career development, such as both gender and language in the case of female employees. This dual effect once again demonstrates how various identities can intersect with language in the construction of an ideal worker – and how those who do not conform to such identity expectations are Othered and prevented from engaging in career development opportunities based on identity characteristics, rather than job competences.

Although a number of studies have looked at the impact of language effects in career progression (e.g., Itani et al., 2015; Yamao and Sekiguchi, 2015), in line with the predominant trend in the language-sensitive IB literature, this has broadly been from a relatively functionalist perspective (see Karhunen et al., 2018). This means that decisions about career progression as related to language are frequently framed in a strategic and rational manner, where language is objectively evaluated as a function of job performance. However, the notion of the ‘ideal worker’ being predicated on linguistic ability imposes certain paradoxes for non-native employees. On the one hand, modern dispositions are driven by the idea that individuals should take responsibility for their language learning to realise different options for their career trajectories, for example, when attempting to obtain a promotion (Flubacher et al., 2018). On the other hand, this logic ignores social structures that may still restrict agency and career opportunities due to sounding ‘different’. As our discussion demonstrates, such evaluations can often be influenced by perceptions of social identity and Othering processes which identify in-groups and out-groups on multiple identity characteristics which intersect with language. Thus, such evaluations are often – even unconsciously – ideologically influenced by perspectives of the ideal worker.

Beyond business contexts, numerous studies conducted in academic environments have highlighted the pervasiveness of conceptualising the ideal worker as one who is English-speaking, and have emphasised the marginalisation that non-anglophone Others experience in the academy. For example, Boussebaa and Brown (2017) demonstrate how French academics working within French business schools are expected to work and publish in English, which they argue to be an act of disciplinary power that remakes academic identities in a process akin to imperialism. Similarly, Śliwa and Johansson (2014) show how non-native academics in a UK context experience evaluations of their professional competence based on the assessment of their perceived level of English. Furthermore, by taking an intersectional approach they demonstrate how amongst non-native speakers, some groups experience Othering processes more negatively than others. For example, they highlight how academics with a German accent experience more favourable evaluations of their professional competence than those with a Greek accent, who are negatively evaluated as less organised. This again shows the importance of the intersection of language with other identity characteristics in Othering processes. Similarly, there have been further studies (e.g., Tietze and Dick, 2013; Pudelko and Tenzer, 2019), which demonstrate the linguistic barriers that internationally mobile academics face, and the persistent influence of academic ‘Englishization’, which leads to the segregation of academic careers based on language skills, particularly under accreditation-related pressures for business school research production (Calegari et al., 2015; Prasad et al., 2019). Although English is the primary focus of this strand of research, Tienari (2023) also provides a useful account of his experiences as a Finnish speaker operating in a Swedish business school in Helsinki, Finland, in which he describes feeling Othered based on language whilst simultaneously recognising the privilege he experiences as a white male professor.

What the ideal worker literature shows us is that while postcolonial theory can provide a valuable lens for understanding language and Othering, these literatures alone cannot fully capture the complexity in which social identity intersects with language. To further understand the marginalisation of non-native speakers, we find that Social Identity Theory provides a useful approach to examine intergroup relations.

Social identity theory in language sensitive IB

Until relatively recently, the main focus of the language-sensitive IB literature has been to consider language-related matters within organisations as a functional problem which can be solved by the application of the correct solution, with lesser attention given to social processes (Karhunen et al., 2018). Despite this, there have been some empirical studies which particularly emphasise how language – a learned characteristic – is an immediately visible marker of identity (Buckley et al., 2005; Lauring and Klitmøller, 2015), and as such is a key contributor to the formation of in-groups and out-groups.

Social identity theory postulates that people desire to achieve positive self-identity through group memberships (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). In fact, it is “the individual’s knowledge that he [or she] belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him [or her] of this group membership” (Tajfel, 1972: 292) that plays a key role. Existing studies have shown that language contributes to social categorisation processes.

The notion of ‘standard language ideology’ holds relevance here, corresponding to what Bourdieu (1977) and Heller (2001) have characterised as the ‘legitimate’ language. This refers to the conception of one language as ‘the norm’ as opposed to ‘the Other’ or ‘non-legitimate’ language varieties. However, preference for monolingualism, which tends to favour English, is considered particularly problematic in the Global South. This is because it reflects elite hegemonic interests, especially those of decision-makers, while undermining the languages and associated identities of the majority of the population (Ndhlovu and Makalela, 2021). We cite an example from Saxena (2009) who reports that after the South-East Asian nation of Brunei proclaimed its independence from Britain in 1984, Malay became the official national language while English has been widely used as the working language in business and as the language of instruction in education. On the one hand, whenever English is perceived as a threat to Malay, the Othering of English manifests itself in Bruneians’ sociolinguistic practices and attitudes. On the other hand, Bruneians cannot escape the institutionalised monolingual English-only ideology (Phillipson, 1992) or the Othering of Malay which also manifests itself, particularly owing to the Ministry of Education’s insistence on enforcing the use of English-only in the classroom. However, the locals find it confusing to be marginalised for using the national language in their own country. Therefore, when they code-switch into Malay as an interactional resistance to English, this leads to an ideological conflict between the “global forces of English and the local forces of national language” (Saxena, 2009: 171). These micro-level interactional encounters illustrate the postcolonial dilemma of linguistic Othering processes towards both English and Malay, questioning the very notion of the linguistic Other.

Taking a dialectical perspective can help us make better sense of the complex and dialectical tensions between the “individual/cultural, privilege/disadvantage, past-present/future” identities at play (Martin and Nakayama, 2015: 20) in the case above. Indeed, the dialectical approach emphasises the ongoing nature of the fluid and dynamic context shaped by both local and global forces that are constantly being reconfigured. In the example of English and Malay in Brunei, the privileged position of the past intersects with the present-day situation highlighting the inevitable inequities and power relations that frame the interactions. The intersectionality approach (Zander et al., 2010) provides another theoretical lens for understanding how these identities are formed (Tajfel, 1972; Tajfel and Turner, 1986) and intertwine at various levels. Language as a marker of difference interacts on multiple levels with other socially and culturally constructed categories, such as internationalisation and localisation, privilege and disadvantage, to create a system of intersecting power relations and tensions, that is, Othering.

From workplace contexts, Lauring (2007) demonstrates how a group of Danish expatriates in Saudi Arabia formed a close-knit managerial group through their exclusive use of the Danish language, preventing other managers from participating, and therefore was a highly salient component of in-group identity. Similarly, Hinds et al. (2014) and Vigier and Spencer-Oatey (2018) have demonstrated that language emerges as a key faultline along which tensions can emerge within multicultural teams as a result of in-group and out-group formation, something which is particularly likely when there are only a few dominant languages spoken by team members. Woo and Giles (2017) also discuss how language attitudes can affect communication processes in multilingual environments and argue, in line with Kulkarni and Sommers (2015), that language can be a source of organisational exclusion, particularly when accents deviate from expected norms (Gluszek and Dovidio, 2010). Such social categorisations may thus lead people to ascribe positive or negative values to different groups positioned on a language hierarchy of proficiency. For instance, in Lønsmann’s (2014) study, the Danes who have a British accent are perceived as speaking ‘real English’, while the French are often singled out as being less proficient speakers. This is because their use of English may not adhere to the standard grammatical and phonological forms of the native variety. These beliefs about the supremacy of native-speaker English are shared to a large degree amongst Lønsmann’s (2014) informants, with the consequence that “the comprehension and production problems of less-proficient English users remain hidden under the surface. They are not considered an issue” (Lønsmann, 2014: 104). The ultimate result is that blue-collar workers and service assistants for whom the corporate language, English, is a barrier, suffer from a lack of access to basic work-related information and may therefore be excluded in specific work situations. These findings coincide with previous research which demonstrates how individuals with weak competence in the corporate language are found to be excluded from information networks, communication flows and decision-making processes (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a; Tange and Lauring, 2009), and experience restricted involvement in social interactions (Vaara et al., 2005).

Further consequences of linguistic diversity related to social inclusion/exclusion amongst migrants in the workplace have recently received attention (Kaushik et al., 2016; Piller and Takahashi, 2013). For example, Roberts’ (2021) research provides substantial evidence of how migrants are Othered and subjected to ‘linguistic penalties’ in job interviews. Despite various diversity initiatives and organisational commitment to providing equal opportunities, migrant candidates who differ from normative ways of speaking are often negatively stereotyped by interviewers and, therefore, are more likely to fail job interviews, compared to native candidates (Roberts, 2021; see also Duchêne et al., 2013, for language, migration and social inequalities; Piller, 2016, on linguistic injustice).

Forms of linguistic othering

Baikovich and Wasserman (2020) discuss three distinct types of Othering that can manifest in organisations: verbal Othering, in terms of how employees talk about themselves and each other; spatial Othering, in terms of how organisational space is used to signify particular identities; and ritual Othering, in terms of the (in)formal events that may reinforce identities as in-groups and out-groups. This provides a useful heuristic through which to examine the forms of linguistic Othering in organisations.

Within the language-sensitive IB literature, perhaps the most prevalent form of Othering that has been documented is verbal. There are numerous examples of how employees exclude and marginalise those who have language skills which differ from perceived norms. For example, Vaara et al. (2005) recount how Finnish managers were marginalised after a corporate merger with a Swedish organisation, because of their limited Swedish-language skills. Neeley explores the effects of an English-language mandate at a previously French-speaking organisation and demonstrates how employees spoke of feeling “‘stupid’, diminished’, ‘reduced’, and ‘devalued’ when communicating” (2013: 484). This case is particularly interesting, as it contrasts with the dominant narrative of English being a characteristic of the ideal worker. In this example, non-native English-speakers began to Other English native speakers, as they were perceived as having an unfair advantage which created resentment and distrust, and thus were constructed as an out-group.

There has been relatively limited research in the language-sensitive IB literature which emphasises the role of organisational space in, for example, multilingual group dynamics when the group is co-located. There are, however, studies which point to the role of geographic dispersal of team members and how this can complicate and frustrate group identity formation (e.g., Tenzer et al., 2014). For example, Ybema and Byun’s (2009) study of Japanese firms in the Netherlands and Dutch firms in Japan shows how employees have strategic agency in that they can discursively legitimate and oppose power relations by creating symbolic boundaries between the ‘Self’ and the ‘Other’ through emphasising cultural and communicative differences. Language can help establish and maintain symbolic boundaries, while space reinforces them. In their recent study, Angouri and Humonen (2023) focused specifically on spatiolinguistic boundaries, and argued that negotiating access to certain workspaces and social groups is subject to language proficiency in multilingual workplaces, leaving those with limited language skills in the social and physical periphery. In Baikovich and Wasserman’s (2020) research, employees of a Japanese subsidiary of an MNC mark certain in/formal organisational spaces as either ‘Japanese’ or ‘Western’ to signify a nationally-bounded identity, which contributes to spatial Othering (Baikovich and Wasserman, 2020). The employees’ spatial practices also manifest their resistant identities against managerial demands for cooperation between different departments. These studies show that discourses of difference make MNCs highly politicised and conflictual spaces where identity politics and language decisions benefit certain agendas vis-à-vis the Others (e.g., Clegg et al., 2018; Vaara et al., 2021). Language is a significant factor in this process because it can be used as “an object of expressing ethnicity”, and/or social class (Tietze et al., 2016), which may cause further polarisation between teams and individuals (Lauring, 2008: 356).

In terms of the use of rituals, one of the key aspects is corporate language policies, which is a public declaration of which language skills the organisation values. However, while language policy documents provide a frame and legitimise particular discourses, the execution of these policies are interpreted within local social contexts (Fredriksson et al., 2006; Piekkari and Westney, 2017). These policies come with ideologies that may serve as the foundation for social identity and contribute to “superiority-inferiority relationships between the people belonging or not belonging to the group that shares the language and the culture symbolised by it” (Vaara et al., 2005: 602). Language policies thus play a significant role in power distribution (Neeley and Dumas, 2016; Piekkari et al., 2005) and the construction of in-groups and out-groups. Larsen (2017) suggests that Othering is at its most potent when the Other becomes complicit in their own subordination. There are examples of this occurring with corporate language policies where employees appear to internalise the values inherent in such mandates, as exemplified by claims that using English as a common corporate language helps them to feel more international (Ehrenreich, 2010).

Resisting linguistic othering

Although we have highlighted that there are specific examples in which being linguistically Othered can lead to individuals experiencing privilege, most empirical studies indicate that Othering primarily has negative effects on those who experience it, as a result of the social exclusion that it frequently creates. Accordingly, we suggest that it is important for organisations and employees to understand ways in which Othering can be resisted.

We propose that there are three key approaches in which linguistic Othering can be overcome in the workplace. The first approach requires those individuals who enact such exclusionary processes to engage in identity work and reflexivity; to understand how and when individuals draw such boundaries on the basis of identity categories. The second approach provides three types of convergence that members of multilingual workplaces can implement to reduce Othering. The third relates to the practices which Othered employees can enact to challenge their own exclusion.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity is often suggested as a tool that can enable us to “compensate for the ‘skew’ in our perspective” (Hibbert, 2021: 2) which causes individuals to see the world in particular ways that can contribute to the Othering processes described above. Whilst organisational managers are often engaged in reflection – on organisational processes, and on organisational knowledge (Schön, 1991) – reflexivity requires a reflection on the Self, and the multiple identity facets which intersect to construct an individual’s worldview. It involves “questioning what we, and others, might be taking for granted – what is being said and not said – and examining the impact this has or might have” (Cunliffe, 2016: 741).

Although there is no neutral standpoint in which we are able to situate ourselves when engaging in reflexive work about our own positionality (Cunliffe, 2003), Kassis-Henderson et al. (2018: 305) suggest that it is helpful to “begin by a fuller understanding of one’s own cultural make-up” which allows for an intersectional lens to be taken, and enables individuals to reflect on boundaries, rather than barriers when thinking about different components of cultural identity. The aim of reflexivity in this sense is not to erase and ignore difference but rather to create awareness which brings the dark side of language (Beeler and Lecomte, 2017) into light. Krumer-Nevo and Sidi (2012: 307) explain that reflexivity can force a recognition of the Other, which may also bring about “a political experience of a gap in power relationships”. Thus, not only can reflexivity enable better understanding of one’s own positionality in order to understand construction of the Self and Other in dialogic exchange, it can also facilitate greater awareness of the political processes and ideologies which can lead to Othering, and thus inform less oppressive ways of managing (Romani et al., 2020).

In practical terms, reflexivity requires managers to question not just their actions but the existential question of who they are (Cunliffe, 2004). Therefore, in line with Kassis-Henderson et al. (2018) we suggest that the framework of Jameson (2007) can be a useful heuristic to avoid thinking about identity in purely essentialist terms around language and nationality. This framework requires individuals to consider subjective identity through a range of lenses, including language, socio-economic class, geographic, vocational, political and religious identities. Crucially, it provokes questions about how others may impact these identities, how they change over time, and the power and privilege (or lack thereof) associated with each of these intersecting and overlapping identities. A reflexive examination of the Self in this way can help to highlight areas of commonality with Others, rather than emphasising the areas of difference, and thus such frameworks provide a practical tool for managers to begin to engage with reflexive processes to develop a decolonial perspective. Phipps (2019: 4) suggests that this requires “a struggle at the roots of the mind” to develop the self-awareness to recognise that privileged ways of knowing are not the only ways of knowing, and that multilingualism requires more than fluency in multiple colonial languages. Thus, to be an effective manager of diverse workplaces, awareness is needed of one’s own identities so that power can be decentred (Scobie et al., 2021).

Convergence

In interactional processes, convergence has been defined as the conscious/unconscious tendency of speakers to adapt to individual differences in communicative behaviour (Giles et al., 1991; Meyerhoff, 2006). We draw on Sanden’s (2020) study examining how staff at the headquarters of two Danish-based manufacturing companies communicate corporate information to blue-collar workers located in their foreign factories through different convergence practices. The study illustrates three levels of convergence – stylistic, linguistic and modal.

Firstly, stylistic convergence pertains to the simplification and adjustment of speech to reduce any complexity and get the message across (Sanden, 2020). This involves deliberate strategies such as favouring basic English, using simple phrases, and speaking slowly. It can also be achieved by avoiding the use of technical terms and jargon (Gaibrois, 2018; Welch et al., 2005) as well as specialist professional language (Tietze et al., 2016; Vigier and Bryant, 2023), which may not be easily understood. Secondly, linguistic convergence involves choosing the language that enables successful communication depending on the precise situation (Sanden, 2020). For example, in a Denmark-based MNC, the language choice of two Danes would likely be Danish to prevent artificiality and to allow greater efficiency, irrespective of the official corporate language policy. Thirdly, modal convergence refers to the specific ‘mode’ or format of communication that is the most appropriate to enable inclusion. For instance, for workers who may possess limited literacy skills or do manual labour without access to computers, oral or visual materials may be required. However, when communicating key information such as passwords, where uppercase and lowercase letters are essential, written methods are more reliable (Sanden, 2020). Such approaches, which highlight similarities rather than differences, can be employed in different communicative events to disrupt the assumptions and behaviour which drive Othering processes.

Yet, Sanden’s (2020) findings demonstrate that stylistic convergence through language simplification may be an insufficient form of convergence to reach out to those with weak language ability, notably blue-collar workers, in multilingual firms. This highlights the importance of alternative strategies, such as linguistic convergence, that is, using the local language, as well as modal convergence, that is, using oral and visual modes, to share corporate information with blue-collar employees, who may possess limited literacy skills or struggle with spoken language comprehension. These are key points considering blue-collar workers’ crucial role in creating value through manual labour and/or service work, thus challenging the notion of a common corporate language. This is in line with previous studies (e.g., Barner-Rasmussen and Aarnio, 2011; Piller, 2014) which show that manufacturing companies are likely to employ workers with low educational levels and limited English proficiency, calling attention to the influence of contextual factors and the language competence of the workforce in the management of communication practices in multilingual companies. Therefore, the appropriateness of communication convergence appears to be linked to the needs of the target population, calling for a nuanced approach to corporate language strategies to address issues of language discrimination and to promote integration and a sense of belonging (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999b).

Convergence, in its various forms, can pose a direct challenge to standard language ideologies which are rooted in colonialist assumptions suggesting that there is a) one “legitimate language” (frequently English, as discussed) which should be used in international business and that b) there is one correct form in which the language should be used. It contributes to “de-naturalisation” (Romani et al., 2020) of orientalist assumptions that English is the language of modernity and progress which legitimises its use in business settings at the expense of other languages. Similarly, using simpler forms of language even when English is spoken, and placing an emphasis on getting communication to take place, rather than on the complexity of the language used in order to enable this, provides the opportunity for everyone to engage in workplace processes, and not just “ideal workers” with high levels of linguistic skills.

Challenging exclusionary processes by those who are othered

In the political realms of workplace settings (e.g., Vaara et al., 2021), cultural differences and struggles over local interests are a daily part of organisational reality. This is relevant in multilingual work contexts where employees may strategically utilise linguistic resources and draw on cultural identity to push forward their own agendas and beliefs. Drawing on the work of Fleming and Spicer (2007) and their conceptualisation of power and resistance, Wilmot (2017) suggests that employees can resist expressions of power which marginalise them through creation, and points to translanguaging (Janssens and Steyeart, 2014) as a way in which employees can productively resist. Whilst Wilmot notes that resistance via creation often takes the form of hybrid linguistic forms, as also observed by Boussebaa et al. (2014), a further example can be found in Ailon-Souday and Kunda’s (2003) study of a merger between an Israeli high-tech corporation and its American competitor. In this context, national identity and language provided powerful resources for resisting both the merger and globalisation more broadly. After the merger, the corporation remained predominantly local, as did the sense of organisational superiority among Israeli employees. This was manifested in the ways Israeli workers labelled their American partners as ‘Jimmys’, implying detachment by turning “personal names into general, impersonal labels” (Ailon-Souday and Kunda, 2003: 1081). Additionally, the Israeli employees humorously imitated American accents in their partners’ absence and deliberately used Hebrew to exclude their colleagues at meetings. By highlighting cultural differences and (re)constructing their national identity (and language) as superior, the Israeli employees invalidated new organisational structures and, subsequently, efforts of collaboration.

It is essential to acknowledge that blending different languages, codes and discourses is natural (Canagarajah, 2022). By doing so, people add their own localised values and interests into the language, allowing those who are Othered to some degree take ownership over the language. For example, studies have shown how minority communities may contest dominant language ideals (Gal, 1993) and demand recognition for their own localised language variation (Higgins, 2009). In this way, they may reject colonial discourses that associate certain languages with productivity in industry in order to disrupt and resist managerial control (Sambajee, 2015). Furthermore, Canagarajah (2022) adds that every individual has their own tone, style and discourse. Therefore, there is always immense individual variation within one language in both spoken and written forms.

Therefore, we suggest that it is necessary to move away from colonising ideas about language standardisation and make more room for democratic practices that normalise linguistic diversification (e.g., Canagarajah, 2022). Democratisation of language varieties could mean, for example, attending to changes in organisational policies (e.g., language planning and guidelines, diversity initiatives), employee attitudes (e.g., training) and work practices (e.g., promotion and hiring decisions, giving voice for marginalised employees, etc.), which would better reflect a wide spectrum of plurilingualism and varieties in a given language.

In essence, we argue that linguistic Othering can be combated not only by changing the behaviours of those who are perpetuating exclusionary practices, but also through claiming agency and linguistic resistance by those who are Othered. This may take the form of micro-practices and covert forms of challenge – and also what Fleming and Spicer (2007) term “voice”; a direct form of challenge to hierarchies by contesting dominant ideologies and demanding recognition for language variation. However, we also acknowledge that there will be those in subaltern positions who are unable to resist (Mahadevan, 2017). For example, a recent study by Angouri and Humonen (2023) shows how the strategic management of language repertoires allows some low-wage language-minoritised workers to exercise agency and power, while the voices of those with limited language proficiency are suppressed.

Conclusion

In this paper, we contribute to the CCM literature by demonstrating how language, as a key component of identity, can be a source of Othering processes that occur in the workplace. However, the importance of language and Othering extends far beyond just business contexts. With the rise of labour migration, asylum seekers, and increasing globalisation, it is essential to recognise the value of linguistic diversity. For example, Janssens and Steyaert (2014) highlight that in a world in which workplaces are increasingly diverse and cosmopolitan, a ‘multilingual franca’ approach often characterises the social practices which occur at work, whilst still recognising the specificities of locality and history which manifest within them. Thus, a multilingual approach reinforces that it is not sufficient to “view linguistic diversity in terms of ‘ethnicity’ or country of origin; instead, other factors come into play – differential immigration statuses, gender, age, race, economic mobility, social class/caste, locality and sexuality – which result in complex blending, mixing and reallocation processes, in which the differences between ‘languages’ are just one factor” (Janssens and Steyaert, 2014: 630). In line with Crenshaw’s (1989) influential concept of intersectionality, there is a need to understand how axes of oppression, of which language is just one, can be layered to compound disadvantage and marginalisation for particular individuals.

We position our work within a tradition of critical CCM which seeks to de-naturalise taken for granted assumptions (Romani et al., 2020). In our case, we question the assumption that language can be simply and rationally managed as a strategic issue (Luo and Shenkar, 2006) by the application of strategies such as corporate language policies. Although the language-sensitive IB literature has increasingly emphasised the importance of exploring language as a social practice rather than through a purely functional lens (Karhunen et al., 2018), there is still surprisingly little explicit consideration of how language contributes to exclusion and marginalisation. By highlighting these processes, we contribute to the strand of literature which attempts to shed light on “the dark side of language” (Beeler and Lecomte, 2017).

By evidencing the ways in which linguistic competences are closely related to ideological constructions of the ideal worker – which themselves may be colonial legacies – we show how, as a result of such politicised perceptions, those who do not conform are disadvantaged and marginalised at work. We therefore contribute to an emerging tradition within the CCM literature which takes a critical approach to understanding intercultural interactions (Romani et al., 2018), by explicitly exploring language as an antecedent to processes of Othering. We build on the tradition of language-sensitive research in IB, which considers language as a distinct area of enquiry rather than a sub-field of culture (e.g., Brannen et al., 2014). This is in keeping with more recent debates in the critical CCM literature that explore language as a category of social identity that intersects with other identity categories and power dimensions (e.g., Kassis-Henderson and Cohen, 2020; Klitmøller, 2020; Mahadevan, 2017; Primecz et al., 2016).

Additionally, by highlighting the possibilities of resistance against such processes, we demonstrate not only how recognition and celebration of difference can help to resist the imposition of cultural hegemony, but also offer practical recommendations regarding how reflexivity, convergence and decolonial practices which contribute to the democratisation of language can help to create more inclusive organisations.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Natalie Victoria Wilmot

Mary Vigier

Kristina Humonen

References

Acker

(1992) Gendering organizational theory. In: Mills

Tancred

(eds) Classics of Organizational Theory. London: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 248–260.

Acker

(2006) Inequality regimes. Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society 20: 441–464.

Ailon-Souday

Kunda

(2003) The local selves of global workers: the social construction of national identity in the face of organizational globalization. Organization Studies 24(7): 1073–1096.

Angouri

Humonen

(2023) “I just sit, drink and go back to work”. Topographies of language practice at work. Multilingua 42(1): 55–82.

Ashley

(2010) Making a difference? The use (and abuse) of diversity management at the UK’s elite law firms. Work, Employment and Society 24(4): 711–727.

Atkinson

Carmichael

Duberley

(2021) The menopause taboo at work: examining women’s embodied experiences of menopause in the UK police service. Work, Employment and Society 35(4): 657–676.

Baikovich

Wasserman

(2020) Mobilizing national identity and othering practices as means of resistance. Organization Science 31(5): 1220–1247.

Bakhtin

(1982) The Dialogic Imagination. (Holquist M, ed.; Emerson C and Holquist M, trans). Austin TX: University of Texas Press.

Bardoel

Drago

Cooper

, et al. (2011) Bias avoidance: cross‐cultural differences in the US and Australian academies. Gender, Work & Organization 18(1): 157–179.

10.

Barner-Rasmussen

Arnio

(2011) Shifting the fautlines of language: a quantitative functional-level exploration of language use in MNC subsidiaries. Journal of World Business 46(3): 288–295.

11.

Baxter

(2004) Dialogues of relating. In: Anderson

Baxter

Cissna

(eds) Dialogue: Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 107–124.

12.

Beeler

Lecomte

(2017) Shedding light on the darker side of language: a dialogical approach to cross-cultural collaboration. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 17(1): 53–67.

13.

Benschop

Van den Brink

Doorewaard

, et al. (2013) Discourses of ambition, gender and part-time work. Human Relations 66(5): 699–723.

14.

Berger

Luckmann

(1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.

15.

Bordia

(2015) Employees’ willingness to adopt a foreign functional language in multilingual organizations: the role of linguistic identity. Journal of International Business Studies 46(4): 415–528.

16.

Bourdieu

(1977) The economics of linguistic exchange. Social Science Information 16(6): 45–68.

17.

Boussebaa

Brown

(2017) Englishization, identity regulation and imperialism. Organization Studies 38(1): 7–29.

18.

Boussebaa

Tienari

(2019) Englishization and the politics of knowledge production in the field of management studies. Journal of Management Inquiry 30(1): 59–67.

19.

Boussebaa

Sinha

Gabriel

(2014) Englishization in offshore call centers: a postcolonial perspective. Journal of International Business Studies 45(9): 1152–1169.

20.

Brannen

Piekkari

Tietze

(2014) The multifaceted role of language in international business: unpacking the forms, functions and features of a critical challenge to MNC theory and performance. Journal of International Business Studies 45(5): 495–507.

21.

Brumley

(2014) The gendered ideal worker narrative: professional women’s and men’s work experiences in the new economy at a Mexican company. Gender and Society 28(6): 799–823.

22.

Buckley

Carter

Clegg

, et al. (2005) Language and social knowledge in foreign-knowledge transfer to China. International Studies of Management and Organization 35(1): 47–65.

23.

Calegari

Sibley

Turner

(2015) A roadmap for using Kotter's organizational change model to build faculty engagement in accreditation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19(3): 31–43.

24.

Canagarajah

(2022) Language diversity in academic writing: toward decolonizing scholarly publishing. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 17(2): 1–22.

25.

Clegg

Geppert

Hollinshead

(2018) Politicization and political contests in and around contemporary multinational corporations: an introduction. Human Relations 71(6): 745–765.

26.

Crenshaw

(1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989(1): 139–167.

27.

Cunliffe

(2003) Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: questions and possibilities. Human Relations 56(8): 983–1003.

28.

Cunliffe

(2004) On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education 28(4): 407–426.

29.

Cunliffe

(2016) “On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner” redux: what does it mean to Be reflexive. Journal of Management Education 40(6): 740–746.

30.

Davies

Frink

(2014) The origins of the ideal worker: the separation of work and home in the United States from the market revolution to 1950. Work and Occupations 41(1): 18–39.

31.

Duchêne

Moyer

Roberts

(2013) Language, Migration and Social Inequalities: A Critical Sociolinguistic Perspective on Institutions and Work. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

32.

Ehrenreich

(2010) English as a business lingua franca in a German multinational corporation: meeting the challenge. Journal of Business Communication 47(4): 208–431.

33.

Fishman

(1997) The sociology of language. In: Coupland

Jaworski

(eds). Sociolinguistics: A Reader. London: Palgrave, 25–30.

34.

Fitzsimmons

(2014) Us, them and others in management research. Academy of Management Review 39(3): 384–386.

35.

Fleming

Spicer

(2007) Contesting the Corporation: Struggle, Power and Resistance in Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Flores

(2013) Silencing the subaltern: nation-state/colonial governmentality and bilingual education in the United States. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 10(4): 263–287.

37.

Flubacher

Duchêne

Coray

(2018) Language Investment and Employability: The Uneven Distribution of Resources in the Public Employment Service. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

38.

Fredriksson

Barner-Rasmussen

Piekkari

(2006) The multinational corporation as a multilingual organization: the notion of a common corporate language. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 11(4): 406–423.

39.

Froese

Kim

Eng

(2016) Language, cultural intelligence and inpatriate turnover intentions: levering values in multinational corporations though inpatriates. Management International Review 56: 283–301.

40.

Gaibrois

(2018) ‘It crosses all the boundaries’: hybrid language use as empowering resource. European Journal of International Management 12(1/2): 82–110.

41.

Gal

(1993) Diversity and contestation in linguistic ideologies: German speakers in Hungary. Language in Society 22(3): 337–359.

42.

Giles

Coupland

(1991) Accommodation theory: communication, context, and consequence. In: Giles

Coupland

(eds) Contexts of Accommodation Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–68.

43.

Gluszek

Dovidio

(2010) The way they speak: a social psychological perspective on the stigma of nonnative accent in communication. Personality and Social Psychology Review 14(2): 214–237.

44.

Guttormsen

(2015) ‘Looking forward by looking back’: a transdisciplinary self/other perspective on intercultural expatriate research. In: Holden

Michailova

Tietze

(eds) Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 344–354.

45.

Guttormsen

DSA

(2018) Advancing otherness and othering of the cultural other during “intercultural encounters” in cross-cultural management research. International Studies of Management and Organization 48(3): 314–332.

46.

Hazel

Haberland

(2013) Negotiated Exclusion - on the Constitution of Otherness in a Multilingual Work Setting. Diversity and Difference in the Contemporary Workplace, January 31-February 1, 2013. Copenhagen Business School.

47.

Heller

(2001) Legitimate language in a multilingual school. In: Heller

Martin-Jones

(eds) Voices of Authority: Education and Linguistic Diversity. Ablex: Westport, pp. 381–402.

48.

Hibbert

(2021) How to Be a Reflexive Researcher. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

49.

Higgins

(2009) English as a Local Language: Post-colonial Identities and Multilingual Practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

50.

Hinds

Neeley

Cramton

(2014) Language as a lightning rod: power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International Business Studies 45(5): 536–561.

51.

Hofstede

(1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverley Hills: Sage Publications Ltd.

52.

Holliday

(2011) Intercultural Communication and Ideology. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

53.

Hosoda

Stone-Romero

(2010) The effects of foreign accents on employment-related decisions. Journal of Managerial Psychology 25(2): 113–132.

54.

Hozhabrossadat

(2015) Linguistic identities: how code-switching and/or code-crossing help constructing solidarity or otherness in multilingual societies. International Journal of English Literature and Culture 3(6): 194–198.

55.

Irvine

Gal

(2000) Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In: Kroskrity

(ed) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, pp. 35–84.

56.

Itani

Järlström

Piekkari

(2015) The meaning of language skills for career mobility in the new career landscape. Journal of World Business 50(2): 368–378.

57.

Jack

(2004), Language(s), intercultural communication and the machinations of global capital: towards a dialectical critique. Language and Intercultural Communication 4(3): 121–133.

58.

Jackson

(2020) Introducing Language and Intercultural Communication. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.

59.

Jackson

(2021) A theory of everything and everywhere: broadening the horizons of cross-cultural management studies. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 21(1): 3–7.

60.

Jackson

Primecz

(2019) Cross-cultural management studies and the Englishization of scholarly communication: a paradox. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 19(2): 115–119.

61.

Jameson

(2007) Reconceptualizing cultural identity and its role in intercultural business communication. Journal of Business Communication 44: 199–235.

62.

Jammaers

Zanoni

Hardonk

(2016) Constructing positive identities in ableist workplaces: disabled employees’ discursive practices engaging with the discourse of lower productivity. Human Relations 69(6): 1365–1386.

63.

Janssens

Steyaert

(2014) Re-considering language within a cosmopolitan understanding: toward a multilingual franca approach in international business studies. Journal of International Business Studies 45(5): 623–639.

64.

Karhunen

Kankaanranta

Louhiala-Salminen

, et al. (2018) Let’s talk about language: a Review of language-sensitive research in international management. Journal of Management Studies 55(6): 980–1013.

65.

Kassis-Henderson

Cohen

(2020) The paradoxical consequences of ‘the perfect accent’: a critical approach to cross-cultural interactions. In: Mahadevan

Primecz

Romani

(eds) Cases in Critical Cross-Cultural Management: An Intersectional Approach to Culture. New York: Routledge, pp. 12–21.

66.

Kassis-Henderson

Cohen

McCulloch

(2018) Boundary crossing and reflexivity: navigating the complexity of cultural and linguistic identity. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 81(3): 304–327.

67.

Kaushik

Walsh

Haefele

(2016) Social integration of immigrants within the linguistically diverse workplace: a systematic review. Review of Social Sciences 1(1): 15–25.

68.

Klitmøller

(2020) How and why an academic expert legitimized social marginalization: the case of making and shaping a corporate language policy. In: Mahadevan

Primecz

Romani

(eds) Cases in Critical Cross-Cultural Management: An Intersectional Approach to Culture. New York: Routledge, pp. 198–209.

69.

Krumer-Nevo

Sidi

(2012) Writing against othering. Qualitative Inquiry 18(4): 299–309.

70.

Kulkarni

Sommer

(2015) Language-based exclusion and prosocial behaviors in organizations. Human Resource Management 54(4): 637–652.

71.

Larsen

(2017) It’s a man’s man’s man’s world’: music groupies and the othering of women in the world of rock. Organization 24(3): 397–417.

72.

Lauring

(2007) Language and ethnicity in international management. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12(2): 255–266.

73.

Lauring

(2008) Rethinking social identity theory in international encounters: language use as a negotiated object for identity making. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 8(3): 343–361.

74.

Lauring

Klitmøller

(2015) Corporate language-based communication avoidance in MNCs or a multi-sited ethnography approach. Journal of World Business 50(1): 46–55.

75.

Leggett

(2010) Institutionalising the colonial imaginaton: Chinese middlemen and the transnational corporate office in Jakarta, Indonesia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(8): 1265–1278

76.

Lønsmann

(2014) Linguistic diversity in the international workplace: language ideologies and processes of exclusion. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 33(1–2): 89–116.

77.

Luo

Shenkar

(2006) The multinational corporation as a multilingual community: language and organization in a global context. Journal of International Business Studies 37(3): 321–339.

78.

Madera

Dawson

Neal

(2014) Managing language barriers in the workplace: the roles of job demands and resources on turnover intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 42: 117–125.

79.

Mahadevan

(2017) A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Cross-Cultural Management. London: Sage

80.

Mahadevan

Primecz

Romani

(2020) Why study CCM in intersection? In: Mahadevan

Primecz

Romani

(eds) Cases in Critical Cross-Cultural Management: An Intersectional Approach to Culture. New York: Routledge pp. 1–11.

81.

Marschan-Piekkari

Welch

(1999a) In the shadow: the impact of language on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International Business Review 8(1): 421–440.

82.

Marschan-Piekkari

Welch

(1999b) Adopting a common corporate language: IHRM implications. International Journal of Human Resource Management 10(3): 377–390.

83.

Martin

Nakayama

(2015) Reconsidering intercultural (communication) competence in the workplace: a dialectical approach. Language and Intercultural Communication 15(1): 13–28.

84.

Meyerhoff

(2006) Introducing Sociolinguistics. Routledge: New York.

85.

Michalski

Śliwa

(2021) ‘If you use the right Arabic...’: responses to special language standardization within the BBC Arabic Service’s linguascape. Journal of World Business 56(5): 1–13.

86.

Mirchandani

(2012) Phone Clones: Authenticity Work in the Transnational Service Economy. NY: Cornell University Press

87.

Ndhlovu

Makalela

(2021) Decolonising Multilingualism in Africa: Recentering Silenced Voices from the Global South. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

88.

Neeley

(2013) Language matters: status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science 24(2): 476–497.

89.

Neeley

(2017) The Language of Global Success: How a Common Tongue Transforms Multinational Organizations. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

90.

Neeley

Dumas

(2016) Unearned status gain: evidence from a global language mandate. Academy of Management Journal 59(1): 14–43.

91.

Ochs

(1996) Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In: Gumperz

Levinson

(eds) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 407–437.

92.

Peterson

(2007) Gendered work ideals in Swedish IT firms: valued and not valued workers. Gender, Work and Organization 14(4): 333–348.

93.

Phillipson

(1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

94.

Phillipson

(1997) Realities and myths of linguistic imperialism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18(3): 238–248.

95.

Phillipson

(2006) English, a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of languages? European Journal of English Studies 10(1): 13–32.

96.

Phillipson

(2008) The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 5(1): 1–43.

97.

Phipps

(2019) Decolonising Multilingualism: Struggles to Decreate. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

98.

Piekkari

Westney

(2017) Language as a meeting ground for research on the MNC and organization theory. Multinational Corporations and Organization Theory: Post Millennium Perspectives (Research in the Sociology of Organizations) 49: 193–232.

99.

Piekkari

Vaara

Tienari

, et al. (2005) Integration or disintegration? Human resource implications of a common corporate language decision in a cross-border merger. International Journal of Human Resource Management 16(3): 330–344.

100.

Piekkari

Welch

(2014) Language in International Business: The Multilingual Reality of Global Business Expansion. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

101.

Piller

(2014) Editorial: linguistic diversity and social inclusion in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 37(3): 190–197.

102.

Piller

(2016) Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice: An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

103.

Piller

Takahashi

(2013) Language work aboard low-cost airline. In: Duchêne

Moyer

Roberts

(eds). Language, Migration and Social Inequalities: A Critical Sociolinguistic Perspective on Institutions and Work. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 95–117.

104.

Prasad

Segarra

Villanueva

(2019) Academic life under institutional pressures for AACSB accreditation: insights from faculty members in Mexican business schools. Studies in Higher Education 44(9): 1605–1618.

105.

Primecz

Mahadevan

Romani

(2016) Why is cross-cultural management scholarship blind to power relations? Investigating ethnicity, language, gender and religion in power-laden contexts. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 16(2): 127–136.

106.

Pudelko

Tenzer

(2019) Boundaryless careers or career boundaries? The impact of language barriers on academic careers in international business schools. The Academy of Management Learning and Education 18(2): 213–240.

107.

Riach

(2007) ‘Othering’ older worker identity in recruitment. Human Relations 60(11): 1701–1726.

108.

Roberts

(2021) Linguistic Penalties and the Job Interview. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Ltd.

109.

Romani

Barmeyer

Primecz

, et al. (2018) Cross-cultural management studies: state of the field in the four research paradigms. International Studies of Management and Organization 48(3): 247–263

110.

Romani

Mahadevan

Primecz

(2018) Critical cross-cultural management: outline and emerging contributions, International Studies of Management & Organization, 48(4), 403–418

111.

Romani

Mahadevan

Primecz

(2020) Methods of critical cross-cultural management. In: Szkudlarek

Romani

Caprar

, et al. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Contemporary Cross-Cultural Management. California: Sage

112.

Rosette

Leonardelli

Phillips

(2008) The White standard: racial bias in leader categorization. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(4): 758–777.

113.

Sacks

(1989) Seeing Voices: A Journey into the World of the Deaf. California: University of California Press.

114.

Said

(1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.

115.

Sambajee

(2015) Rethinking non-traditional resistance at work: the case of the Indian Diaspora in Mauritius. Culture and Organization 21(5): 386–408.

116.

Sambajee

(2016) The dynamics of language and ethnicity in Mauritius. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 16(2): 215–229.

117.

Sanden

(2020) Limits of language: stylistic, linguistic and modal convergence in blue-collar communication. Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication 93: 72–101.

118.

Saxena

(2009) Construction and deconstruction of linguistic otherness: conflict and cooperative code-switching in (English/) bilingual classrooms. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 8(2): 167–187.

119.

Schön

(1991) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.

120.

Scobie

Lee

Smyth

(2021) Brading together student and supervisor aspirations in a struggle to decolonize. Organization 28(5): 857–875.

121.

Seremani

Clegg

(2016) Postcolonialism, organization and management theory: the role of "Epistemological Third Spaces", Journal of Management Inquiry , 25(2): 171-183

122.

Śliwa

Johansson

(2014) How non-native English-speaking staff are evaluated in linguistically diverse organizations: a sociolinguistic perspective. Journal of International Business Studies 45(9): 1133–1151.

123.

Spivak

(1988) Can the subaltern speak? In: Nelson

Grossberg

(eds). Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 271–313.

124.

Srinivas

(2013) Could a subaltern manage? Identity work and habitus in a colonial workplace. Organization Studies 34(11): 1655–1674.

125.

Stahl

Makela

Zander

, et al. (2010) Applying a positive organizational scholarship lens to multicultural team research: a look at the bright side of team diversity. Scandinavian Journal of Management 26: 439–447.

126.

Tajfel

(1972) Social categorization (English translation of "La categorisation sociale"). In: Moscovici

(ed) Introduction à la Psychologie Sociale 1. Paris: Larousse, pp. 272–302.

127.

Tajfel

Turner

(1986) The social identity theory of inter-group behaviour. In: Worchel

Austin

(eds) Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7–24.

128.

Tange

Lauring

(2009) Language management and social interaction within the multilingual workplace. Journal of Communication Management 13(3): 218–232.

129.

Tenzer

Pudelko

Harzing

A-W

(2014) The impact of language barriers on trust formation in multinational teams. Journal of International Business Studies 45(5): 508–535.

130.

Theunissen

Van Laer

(2023) Exploring the politics of linguistic difference: the construction of language requirements for migrants in jobs traditionally conducted by local native speakers. Culture and Organization 29(3): 211–225.

131.

Tienari

(2023) Let us (not) speak Finnish! On language, power relations and ambivalence. In: Lecomte

Vigier

Gaibrois

, et al. (eds) Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Multilingualism in Professional Contexts: Advances in Language-Sensitive Management Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 206–2019.

132.

Tietze

(2004) Spreading the management Gospel - in English. Language and Intercultural Communication 4(3): 175–189.

133.

Tietze

(2008) International Management and Language. London: Routledge.

134.

Tietze

(2022) Language, Translation and Management Knowledge: A Research Overview. London: Routledge.

135.

Tietze

Dick

(2013) The victorious English language: hegemonic practices in the management academy. Journal of Management Inquiry 22: 122–134.

136.

Tietze

Holden

Barner-Rasmussen

(2016) Language use in multinational corporations: the role of special languages and corporate idiolects. In: Ginsburgh

Weber

(eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Economics and Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 312–341.

137.

Vaara

Tienari

Piekkari

, et al. (2005) Language and the circuits of power in a merging multinational corporation. Journal of Management Studies 42(3): 594–623.

138.

Vaara

Tienari

Koveshnikov

(2021) From cultural differences to identity politics: a critical discursive approach to national identity in multinational corporations. Journal of Management Studies 58(8): 2052–2081.

139.

Van Laer

Janssens

(2011) Ethnic minority professionals’ experiences with subtle discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations 64(9): 1203–1227.

140.

Vigier

Bryant

(2023) Contextual and linguistic challenges for French business schools to achieve international accreditation: experts as boundary spanners. Critical Perspectives on International Business 19(1): 70–89

141.

Vigier

Spencer-Oatey

(2018) The interplay of rules, asymmetries in language fluency, and team dynamics in culturally diverse teams: case study insights. Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management 25(1): 157–182.

142.

wa Thiong’o

(1986) Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. London: Pearson Education

143.

Welch

Piekkari

(2005) Speaking in tongues: the importance of language in international management processes. International Studies of Management and Organization 35(1): 10–27.

144.

Westwood

(2004) Towards a postcolonial research paradigm in international business and comparative management. In: Marschan-Piekkari

Welch

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Methods for International Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 56–83.

145.

Westwood

(2006) International business and management studies as an orientalist discourse: a postcolonial critique. Critical Perspectives on International Business 2(2): 91–113.

146.

Wilmot

(2017) Language and the faces of power: a theoretical approach. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 17(1): 85–100.

147.

Wilmot

Tietze

(2023) Englishization and the politics of translation. Critical Perspectives on International Business 19(1): 46–69.

148.

Woo

Giles

(2017) Language attitudes and intergroup dynamics in multilingual organizations. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 17(1): 39–52.

149.

Yamao

Sekiguchi

(2015) Employee commitment to corporate globalization: the role of English language proficiency and human resource practices. Journal of World Business 50(1): 168–179.

150.

Ybema

Byun

(2009) Cultivating cultural differences in asymmetric power relations. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9(3): 339–358.

151.

Zander

Gaffney

, et al. (2010) Intersectionality as a new perspective in international business research. Scandinavian Journal of Management 26(4): 457–466.

Language as a source of otherness

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Language and the social construction of the other

Postcolonial perspectives on othering

Language and the ‘ideal worker’

Social identity theory in language sensitive IB

Forms of linguistic othering

Resisting linguistic othering

Reflexivity

Convergence

Challenging exclusionary processes by those who are othered

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References