The Use of Common Corporate Language: German Multinational Organization

Introduction

Today, globalization has virtually removed national boundaries, as people are free to move across countries and work wherever they like if they have sufficient skills. This is especially true for the European Union (EU), as the workforce in EU has become more agile and flexible. Globalization changing the way people communicate both on personal and corporate levels. Communication is growing more cross-cultural and cross-national every day, as companies may have employees with different cultural, ethnical, and language background. On the one hand, diversity within organizations is associated with significant benefits for the company. Palazzeschi et al. (2018) state that cultural diversity is positively associated with innovation in multi-cultural organizations. Multiculturism is also beneficial for acquiring cultural awareness about the peculiarities of markets and customers around the world (Cletus et al., 2018). In other words, cultural diversity in the workplace can help to gain culture-sensitive expertise in the new markets, as the company expands.

On the other hand, the cultural diversity may be associated with significant challenges, as it may negatively affect the performance of companies. The effectiveness and efficiency of organizations is largely dependent on the individual performance of employees. If corporate culture does not suit multicultural teams, it may limit the effectiveness of individual employees. For instance, Ayega and Muathe (2018) mention that “diversity as beneficial to performance under facilitating context; on the other hand it is detrimental under obstructing context” (p. 10). In other words, corporate culture of organizations needs have workplace culture that does not limit the aspirations and capabilities of employees depending on their race, gender, cultural background, and other qualities that are not immediately connected to performance. Moreover, in culturally-diverse alliances, the subsidiaries are generally less innovative than the main companies (Elia et al., 2019). However, if alliances are explorative rather than exploitative, innovation in the subsidiaries increases (Elia et al., 2019). In other words, cultural diversity requires careful management in order to benefit the company.

One of the obstacles to the effective management of cross-cultural teams is cross-cultural communication. Matthews and Thakkar (2012) stated that “global businesses must understand how to communicate with employees and customers from different cultures in order to fulfill the organization’s mission and build value for stakeholders” (p. 325). Communication in different cultures differs in their characteristics, as there are various peculiarities in both verbal and non-verbal communication patterns depending on the cultural, ethnical, national, and language background. Managers need to appreciate these differences to be able to benefit from cultural diversity of employees.

Multilingualism may be a significant barrier to effective communication among employees. For instance, Thompson (2018) states that people working together may face significant problems in passing information, knowledge, and skills due to the language barrier. Even if employees agree upon speaking one language, they may have problems in communication, as they have different level of proficiency in this language, which may negatively affect the effectiveness of communication (Thompson, 2018). For some employees the corporate language may be their native language, while others may have very little knowledge of the language and a heavy accent. Dijkstra et al. (2018) state that the difference in proficiency may be the source of discrimination and ridicule, which may negatively affect the efficiency of communication. At the same time, many companies cannot abstain from introducing a corporate language different from the national language of the country the company in which the company is situated due to increased cultural diversity (Theodoropoulou, 2020). Therefore, it is crucial for the company to understand the dynamics of communication in multi-lingual environments to maximize the efficiency the organization.

Problem Statement

Many multinational corporations (MNCs) introduce a common corporate language (CCL) to address linguistic boarders. In most cases, the common language is chosen to be English (Verboom, 2016). The majority of MNCs operate globally, which implies that communication may be a significant barrier for the company’s effectiveness (Verboom, 2016). The core of the barrier is the difference in CCL proficiency level and resistance of the employees to switch from the local language (LL) to CCL (Forsbom, 2014). At the same time, MNCs often insist on using the CCL despite the resistance for several reasons. Theodoropoulou (2020) stated that the use of CCL is crucial not only for the effectiveness of the company and completion of projects, but also for the safety employees. For example, in the construction sites in Qatar, high level of proficiency in CCL is crucial for employees, as all the safety instructions and announcements are made in English (Theodoropoulou, 2020). Therefore, promotion of CCL in MNCs is sometimes a necessity rather than a measure for improving efficiency.

The problem of multilingualism and introduction of a CCL is matter of increased interest among scholars and managers of MNCs. On the one hand, research demonstrates that CCL may be a crucial instrument used by the majority of employees in the MNCs (Theodoropoulou, 2020). On the other hand, research demonstrates that introduction of CCL may be only a formal matter, as the employees continue using their LL for everyday professional communications (Forsbom, 2014). Different factors affect the employees’ language preferences, including language proficiency, type of communication, professionalism, and social identity (Verboom, 2016). While the matter is in the center of attention of many scholars, there is little research available concerning the subject in Germany, which signals about a significant gap in the current body of knowledge. It is crucial to address the problem to increase the amount of empirical evidence available for managers and improve awareness about the possible obstacles that may interfere with the efficiency of internal communication in MNCs.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of the present paper is to study how CCL is used in a large company in Germany. In particular, it was decided to focus on KNIME, a software developing company offices in Zurich, Berlin, Konstanz, and Austin. Increased awareness about the patterns of use of CCL is expected to help managers of MNCs to introduce a CCL and use it effectively to improve the company’s performance. The focus on the offices in Konstanz and Berlin will help to acquire a very specific knowledge about the communication patterns in the country, which is crucial for managers in Germany. This study also aims at studying different situations in which employees prefer to use LL and CCL. This knowledge can help managers to formulate an effective policy concerning the use of CCL in German MNCs. Finally, the research is expected to understand how the employees perceive the patterns of CCL and LL use.

What is the language policy in the German office of KNIME?

This research question includes understanding of how the language policy is formulated in KNIME and how well the employees are informed about it. Before assessing how the employees view the language policy and adhere to it is crucial to understand how the policy is formalized in the documents. Additionally, it is important to see how well the employees are informed about the CCL. If employees have been in the company for a long time, but do not have a clear understanding about the language policy, it may be a signal that the policy is present only formally. Knowing the details about how the language policy is communicated to the employees and how the employees perceive is the first step to achieving the purpose of the present study.

What are the patterns of CCL and LL use in the German office of KNIME?

This research question focuses on what language KNIME employees use depending on the situation. In particular, the research focuses on different types of communication, such as formal, informal, written, and spoken. Knowing about the different patterns of CCL and LL use can help the managers to understand what parts of KNIME’s language policy should be improved. Additionally, this question includes understanding if communication patterns differed among the departments of KNIME. Data for the present research was collected from three departments of KNIME, including customer care, technology, and marketing. Learning about the differences in the communication patterns can help to understand if management practices should be altered depending on the department. As it was mentioned previously, attitude towards CCL depends on several factors, including language preferences, including language proficiency, type of communication, professionalism, and social identity (Verboom, 2016). Additionally, Fredriksson et al. (2006) mentioned that CCL use may vary depending on the office’s location and department. Thus, it is expected that the communication patterns will vary among different departments.

What is the attitude of the employees towards patterns of CCL and LL use at KNIME?

This research question focuses on learning about how the employees feel about the patterns of CCL and LL use. The answer to the research question can help to understand if the patterns of CCL use are perceived as obstacles or facilitators of communication within the company. The idea of learning about the feelings about the employees is routed in the assumption that language policy may affect employee satisfaction, which in turn may affect employee performance (Ibrahim et al., 2020). Knowing the attitude towards patterns of CCL use may help the managers to prevent decreases in employee performance and turnover. The research question targets the employees’ feelings, opinions, and thoughts about using CCL. This can help to uncover possible misperceptions and divergent views.

Multilingualism in the Workplace

Multilingualism is defined as using two or more languages in the workplace by an individual speaker or by a group of people (Meyer & Apfelbaum, 2010). Multilingualism is viewed as one of the methods to acquire competitive advantage in the context of globalization. Multilingualism is common in MNCs in Europe due to increased mobility of the workforce in the EU. Companies may benefit from multilingualism, as it facilitates communication with culturally diverse groups of customers. Multilingualism is common in firms that seek access to international workforces (Meyer & Apfelbaum, 2010). Workplace multilingualism is not a recent phenomenon, as it has become common in Europe since the 1990s (Meyer & Apfelbaum, 2010). Thus, it is crucial for all managers to be aware of multilingualism as a phenomenon.

Multilingualism is known to be a significant barrier to internal communications within a firm. In particular, it may affect knowledge sharing among people with different linguistic background and affect the efficiency of operations (Sanden, 2016). Thus, MNCs often implement language management, which is defined as “an instrumental process where language is seen as a variable in business and corporate management” (Sanden, 2020, p. 23). The purpose of language management is usually to standardize communication practices among employees to ensure integrity (Sanden, 2020). Introduction of a CCL is one of the approaches to language management within MNCs.

Common Corporate Language

CCL is a language utilized by a company for official communication. It may also apply to some areas of unofficial communication depending on the company’s language policy (Sanden, 2020). A language policy describes in what situations employees should use the official company’s language and in which situations the employees can use the language they want to use. English is used as a CCL most often, as it is considered the world’s business language (Cogo, A., & Yanaprasart, 2018). While there are numerous benefits of CCL, there several challenges that should be acknowledged. They include communicative challenges due to differences in language proficiency and accents, reallocation of power, resistance from the employees, inappropriate follow-up initiatives, and creation of inadequate language policies due to unawareness (Sanden, 2020). The challenges associated with changes in the language strategy will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2 of the present paper.

Meyer an Apfelbaum (2010) outline several benefits of a CCL in the workplace apart from those mentioned above:

1. Open communication. CCL allows employees to be agile and communicate with all the people in the workplace. Speaking different language may be the reason for a person to avoid communicating with another one. However, if all the employees speak the same language, the language barrier is erased. Additionally, introduction of a CCL allows employees to work at any office of an MNC, as everyone speaks the same language regardless of the location. Moreover, the employees do feel uncomfortable due to the lack of proficiency when the speak it, as CCL is typically is not the first language of all employees and everybody is used to language proficiency being different.
2. Development and training. Having a common language helps to share knowledge among different departments and offices in different countries. Knowledge sharing is crucial for MNCs, as experts pass everything they know to more inexperienced employees. Knowledge sharing allows turning expertise into an intangible asset, which is central for software development firms and other technologically advanced companies.
3. Hiring. Common company language also opens up an MNCs to international labor markets. Today, many high-skilled specialists know English due to globalization. If a company introduces English as their CCL, it may attract candidates from different countries.

KNIME

KNIME is an MNC that produces analytical software established in 2008 with headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland. The central product of KNIME is an analytical platform that opens solutions for other companies for data-driven innovation through mining for fresh insights and predicting the future. The platform allows data scientists use any kind of data from numbers to images (KNIME, n.d.). Another central product of the company is the KNIME Server, which allows data scientist team collaboration by using online tools (KNIME, n.d.). The open source KNIME Analytics Platform empowers every user to choose the best resources to get maximum value from all data in the simplest way. KNIME Server complements the free platform and enables collaboration, management, enterprise wide use, and deployment of data science to everyone. The company is known to be driven by innovation and customer centricity.

Since KNIME is not a publicly traded company, there is little official information available; however, some insights were gained from internal documents and unofficial external sources. The company’s goal is to create great software for easy, agile, and intuitive access to advanced data science. KNIME’s team helps to integrate cutting-edge technology to all spheres of business. The key values the company emphasizes are the following:

• Pride. The company takes pride in its products, as it helps the customers to build communities around it;
• Constant Learning. KNIME put an increased emphasis on learning from different sources including, the users, the community, experiments, mistakes, and each other;
• Open communication. The company encourages its employees to speak what they think without insulting anyone and asking questions whenever they appear;
• Permanent problem solving. Instead of quick fixes, the company encourages it employees to investigate every problem and solve it in its core;
• Collective decision-making. KNIME encourages its employees to avoid considering egos and politics in the decision-making process and act together as a team.

It is curious to notice that the company has the so-called “Smell Test” for anything that is not described in the internal policies. This test encourages the employees to imagine that the customers or users see or hear what we do and say. If that makes you uncomfortable, it should not be done, as it does not pass the Smell Test.

The company currently has 165 employees in Zurich, Berlin, Konstanz, and Austin, TX. The office in Berlin has 47 employees, and the office in Konstanz has 65 employees. The company’s annual revenue is estimated at $8.5 million and total investment is estimated at $21.3 million (Craft, 2022). The central competitors of the company are Eficode, Alteryx, Red Canary, and Studio Sorti (Craft, 2022). The company also has a strong social media presence in the majority of social media platform.

Background

Today, globalization has virtually removed national boundaries, as people are free to move across countries and work wherever they like if they have sufficient skills. This is especially true for the European Union (EU), as the workforce in the EU has become more agile and flexible. Globalization is changing the way people communicate both on personal and corporate levels. Communication is growing more cross-cultural and cross-national every day, as companies may have employees with different cultural, ethnic, and language backgrounds. On the one hand, diversity within organizations is associated with significant benefits for the company. Palazzeschi et al. (2018) state that cultural diversity is positively associated with innovation in multicultural organizations. Multiculturism is also beneficial for acquiring cultural awareness about the peculiarities of markets and customers around the world (Cletus et al., 2018). In other words, cultural diversity in the workplace can help to gain culture-sensitive expertise in the new markets as the company expands.

On the other hand, cultural diversity may be associated with significant challenges, as it may negatively affect the performance of companies. The effectiveness and efficiency of organizations is largely dependent on the individual performance of employees. If corporate culture does not suit multicultural teams, it may limit the effectiveness of individual employees. For instance, Ayega and Muathe (2018) mention that “diversity as beneficial to performance under facilitating context; on the other hand it is detrimental under obstructing context” (p. 10). In other words, the corporate culture of organizations needs to have a workplace culture that does not limit the aspirations and capabilities of employees depending on their race, gender, cultural background, and other qualities that are not immediately connected to performance. Moreover, in culturally-diverse alliances, the subsidiaries are generally less innovative than the main companies (Elia et al., 2019). However, if alliances are explorative rather than exploitative, innovation in the subsidiaries increases (Elia et al., 2019). In other words, cultural diversity requires careful management in order to benefit the company.

One of the obstacles to the effective management of cross-cultural teams is cross-cultural communication. Matthews and Thakkar (2012) stated that “global businesses must understand how to communicate with employees and customers from different cultures in order to fulfill the organization’s mission and build value for stakeholders” (p. 325). Communication in different cultures differs in their characteristics, as there are various peculiarities in both verbal and non-verbal communication patterns depending on the cultural, ethnic, national, and language background. Managers need to appreciate these differences to be able to benefit from the cultural diversity of employees.

Multilingualism may be a significant barrier to effective communication among employees. For instance, Thompson (2018) states that people working together may face significant problems in passing information, knowledge, and skills due to the language barrier. Even if employees agree upon speaking one language, they may have problems in communication, as they have different levels of proficiency in this language, which may negatively affect the effectiveness of communication (Thompson, 2018). For some employees, the corporate language may be their native language, while others may have very little knowledge of the language and a heavy accent. Dijkstra et al. (2018) state that the difference in proficiency may be the source of discrimination and ridicule, which may negatively affect the efficiency of communication. At the same time, many companies cannot abstain from introducing a corporate language different from the national language of the country the company in which the company is situated due to increased cultural diversity (Theodoropoulou, 2020). Therefore, it is crucial for the company to understand the dynamics of communication in multilingual environments to maximize the efficiency of the organization.

Problem Statement

Many multinational corporations (MNCs) introduce a common corporate language (CCL) to address linguistic borders. In most cases, the common language is chosen to be English (Verboom, 2016). The majority of MNCs operate globally, which implies that communication may be a significant barrier to the company’s effectiveness (Verboom, 2016). The core of the barrier is the difference in CCL proficiency level and resistance of the employees to switch from the local language (LL) to CCL (Forsbom, 2014). At the same time, MNCs often insist on using the CCL despite the resistance for several reasons. Theodoropoulou (2020) stated that the use of CCL is crucial not only for the effectiveness of the company and completion of projects but also for the safety of employees. For example, in construction sites in Qatar, a high level of proficiency in CCL is crucial for employees, as all the safety instructions and announcements are made in English (Theodoropoulou, 2020). Therefore, the promotion of CCL in MNCs is sometimes a necessity rather than a measure for improving efficiency.

The problem of multilingualism and the introduction of a CCL is a matter of increased interest among scholars and managers of MNCs. On the one hand, research demonstrates that CCL may be a crucial instrument used by the majority of employees in the MNCs (Theodoropoulou, 2020). On the other hand, research demonstrates that the introduction of CCL may be only a formal matter, as the employees continue using their LL for everyday professional communications (Forsbom, 2014). Different factors affect the employees’ language preferences, including language proficiency, type of communication, professionalism, and social identity (Verboom, 2016). While the matter is in the center of attention of many scholars, there is little research available concerning the subject in Germany, which signals a significant gap in the current body of knowledge. It is crucial to address the problem to increase the amount of empirical evidence available for managers and improve awareness about the possible obstacles that may interfere with the efficiency of internal communication in MNCs.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of the present paper is to study how CCL is used in a large company in Germany. In particular, it was decided to focus on KNIME, a software developing company offices in Zurich, Berlin, Konstanz, and Austin. Increased awareness about the patterns of use of CCL is expected to help managers of MNCs to introduce a CCL and use it effectively to improve the company’s performance. The focus on the offices in Konstanz and Berlin will help to acquire very specific knowledge about the communication patterns in the country, which is crucial for managers in Germany. This study also aims at studying different situations in which employees prefer to use LL and CCL. This knowledge can help managers to formulate an effective policy concerning the use of CCL in German MNCs. Finally, the research is expected to understand how the employees perceive the patterns of CCL and LL use.

What is the language policy in the German office of KNIME?

This research question includes an understanding of how the language policy is formulated in KNIME and how well the employees are informed about it. Before assessing how the employees view the language policy and adhere to it is crucial to understand how the policy is formalized in the documents. Additionally, it is important to see how well the employees are informed about the CCL. If employees have been in the company for a long time but do not have a clear understanding of the language policy, it may be a signal that the policy is present only formally. Knowing the details about how the language policy is communicated to the employees and how the employees perceive is the first step to achieving the purpose of the present study.

What are the patterns of CCL and LL use in the German offices of KNIME?

This research question focuses on what language KNIME employees use depending on the situation. In particular, the research focuses on different types of communication, such as formal, informal, written, and spoken. Knowing about the different patterns of CCL and LL use can help the managers to understand what parts of KNIME’s language policy should be improved. Additionally, this question includes understanding if communication patterns differed among the departments of KNIME. Data for the present research was collected from three departments of KNIME, including customer care, technology, and marketing. Learning about the differences in the communication patterns can help to understand if management practices should be altered depending on the department. As it was mentioned previously, attitude towards CCL depends on several factors, including language preferences, including language proficiency, type of communication, professionalism, and social identity (Verboom, 2016). Additionally, Fredriksson et al. (2006) mentioned that CCL use might vary depending on the office’s location and department. Thus, it is expected that the communication patterns will vary among different departments.

What is the attitude of the employees towards patterns of CCL and LL use at KNIME?

This research question focuses on learning about how the employees feel about the patterns of CCL and LL use. The answer to the research question can help to understand if the patterns of CCL use are perceived as obstacles or facilitators of communication within the company. The idea of learning about the feelings about the employees is rooted in the assumption that language policy may affect employee satisfaction, which in turn may affect employee performance (Ibrahim et al., 2020). Knowing the attitude towards patterns of CCL use may help the managers to prevent decreases in employee performance and turnover. The research question targets the employees’ feelings, opinions, and thoughts about using CCL. This can help to uncover possible misperceptions and divergent views.

Multilingualism in the Workplace

Multilingualism is defined as using two or more languages in the workplace by an individual speaker or by a group of people (Meyer & Apfelbaum, 2010). Multilingualism is viewed as one of the methods to acquire a competitive advantage in the context of globalization. Multilingualism is common in MNCs in Europe due to the increased mobility of the workforce in the EU. Companies may benefit from multilingualism, as it facilitates communication with culturally diverse groups of customers. Multilingualism is common in firms that seek access to international workforces (Meyer & Apfelbaum, 2010). Workplace multilingualism is not a recent phenomenon, as it has become common in Europe since the 1990s (Meyer & Apfelbaum, 2010). Thus, it is crucial for all managers to be aware of multilingualism as a phenomenon.

Multilingualism is known to be a significant barrier to internal communications within a firm. In particular, it may affect knowledge sharing among people with different linguistic backgrounds and affect the efficiency of operations (Sanden, 2016). Thus, MNCs often implement language management, which is defined as “an instrumental process where language is seen as a variable in business and corporate management” (Sanden, 2020, p. 23). The purpose of language management is usually to standardize communication practices among employees to ensure integrity (Sanden, 2020). The introduction of a CCL is one of the approaches to language management within MNCs.

Common Corporate Language

CCL is a language utilized by a company for official communication. It may also apply to some areas of unofficial communication, depending on the company’s language policy (Sanden, 2020). A language policy describes in what situations employees should use the official company’s language and in which situations the employees can use the language they want to use. English is used as a CCL most often, as it is considered the world’s business language (Cogo, A., & Yanaprasart, 2018). While there are numerous benefits of CCL, there are several challenges that should be acknowledged. They include communicative challenges due to differences in language proficiency and accents, reallocation of power, resistance from the employees, inappropriate follow-up initiatives, and the creation of inadequate language policies due to unawareness (Sanden, 2020). The challenges associated with changes in the language strategy will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2 of the present paper.

Meyer and Apfelbaum (2010) outline several benefits of a CCL in the workplace apart from those mentioned above:

1. Open communication. CCL allows employees to be agile and communicate with all the people in the workplace. Speaking a different language may be the reason for a person to avoid communicating with another one. However, if all the employees speak the same language, the language barrier is erased. Additionally, the introduction of a CCL allows employees to work at any office of an MNC, as everyone speaks the same language regardless of the location. Moreover, the employees feel uncomfortable due to the lack of proficiency when they speak it, as CCL is typically not the first language of all employees, and everybody is used to language proficiency being different.
2. Development and training. Having a common language helps to share knowledge among different departments and offices in different countries. Knowledge sharing is crucial for MNCs, as experts pass everything they know to more inexperienced employees. Knowledge sharing allows turning expertise into an intangible asset, which is central for software development firms and other technologically advanced companies.
3. Hiring. Common company language also opens up MNCs to international labor markets. Today, many high-skilled specialists know English due to globalization. If a company introduces English as their CCL, it may attract candidates from different countries.

KNIME

KNIME is an MNC that produces analytical software established in 2008 with headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland. The central product of KNIME is an analytical platform that opens solutions for other companies for data-driven innovation through mining for fresh insights and predicting the future. The platform allows data scientists to use any kind of data, from numbers to images (KNIME, n.d.). Another central product of the company is the KNIME Server, which allows data scientist team collaboration by using online tools (KNIME, n.d.). The open-source KNIME Analytics Platform empowers every user to choose the best resources to get maximum value from all data in the simplest way. KNIME Server complements the free platform and enables collaboration, management, enterprise-wide use, and deployment of data science to everyone. The company is known to be driven by innovation and customer-centricity.

Since KNIME is not a publicly-traded company, there is little official information available; however, some insights were gained from internal documents and unofficial external sources. The company’s goal is to create great software for easy, agile, and intuitive access to advanced data science. KNIME’s team helps to integrate cutting-edge technology into all spheres of business. The key values the company emphasizes are the following:

• Pride. The company takes pride in its products, as it helps the customers to build communities around it;
• Constant Learning. KNIME put an increased emphasis on learning from different sources including, the users, the community, experiments, mistakes, and each other;
• Open communication. The company encourages its employees to speak what they think without insulting anyone and asking questions whenever they appear;
• Permanent problem-solving. Instead of quick fixes, the company encourages its employees to investigate every problem and solve it at its core;
• Collective decision-making. KNIME encourages its employees to avoid considering egos and politics in the decision-making process and act together as a team.

It is curious to notice that the company has the so-called “Smell Test” for anything that is not described in the internal policies. This test encourages the employees to imagine that the customers or users see or hear what we do and say. If that makes you uncomfortable, it should not be done, as it does not pass the Smell Test.

The company currently has 165 employees in Zurich, Berlin, Konstanz, and Austin, TX. The office in Berlin has 47 employees, and the office in Konstanz has 65 employees. The company’s annual revenue is estimated at $8.5 million, and the total investment is estimated at $21.3 million (Craft, 2022). The central competitors of the company are Eficode, Alteryx, Red Canary, and Studio Sorti (Craft, 2022). The company also has a strong social media presence on the majority of social media platforms.

KNIME’s Communication Policy

KNIME has a comprehensive communication policy, and every employee is required to take a training course in internal communication. The major principles of KNIME’s communication policy are an orientation on the result, staying positive, and focusing on listening more than on talking. The communication policy provides a thorough explanation of the circumstances when an employee should use Slack (internal corporate messaging system) and emails. Apart from general rules, such as consideration about the urgency of response, confidentiality, and usefulness, the policy includes considerations about embarrassing or gossiping in Slack. The company encourages the employees to always remember that a message may pop up during a presentation or when someone else is looking at the employees’ monitors. Thus, it is crucial to avoid messages that may appear unethical or inappropriate. There are also online etiquette rules, such as explanations of the reason why a person is contacting another one, saying thank you, being on topic, and being concise.

The communication policy also explains the company’s rules concerning meetings. The company outlines six purposes of meetings and provides tips about what is required for every type of meeting. The communication policy also provides guidance concerning online conference etiquette. Below are the rules outlined by the company (KNIME, 2021):

1. We use Zoom for all types of electronic meetings.
2. If you are the host, join a few minutes earlier and make sure that there are no technical issues.
3. If you are an attendee: join on time.
4. Turn on your camera, and if you’re going to share your screen, adapt the screen resolution.
5. Mute Slack, email, your mobile, and yourself if required, e.g., due to background noises.
6. Focus on the meeting (don’t do what you wouldn’t do in a live meeting).
7. Make sure every participant of the meeting is treated with the same respect.

In summary, the company’s communication policy is very well formalized for the employees. However, there is a significant drawback of the policy that can create uncertainty among the employees. In particular, there is a policy that the CCL of the company is English, and everyone is expected to speak English during formal meetings and official internal communication. However, this matter is not included in the training course concerning internal communication policy and KNIME. Thus, it may be assumed that this drawback affects how the CCL is used in the company. The present paper is expected to answer shed light on this matter.

Literature Review

The second chapter provides an overview of the current body of knowledge concerning language policies in MNCs. First, the chapter discusses the use of CCL as the central language policy. It focuses on the definition of CCL, its purpose, benefits, and drawbacks. Second, the chapter discusses multilingual language policy as an alternative to the introduction of a CCL. Third, the chapter overviews challenges associated with the introduction of a language policy. Fourth, the patterns of language use among MNCs are discussed. Finally, the chapter defines the research gap this paper will address. The chapter is concluded with a summary.

Common Corporate Language

While the essence of CCL is intuitively clear, there are significant differences in the interpretations of the term. Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta (2012) state that there is no clear definition of CCL, as it is seen as both a strategy that regulates the language policy in a company and a language that is most appropriate for the communication inside MNCs. However, a CCL often means that all the formal communications within the subsidiaries inside the corporation are conducted in one language, usually English (Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005). In other words, CCL is a prescriptive measure that sets a rule for the company employees concerning which language to choose for official communication inside a company.

It is also crucial to mention the term “language policy,” as it goes hand-in-hand with CCL. Sanden (2015) defines a language policy as a generic concept that consists of three components, including language practices, language beliefs, and language management decisions. On a simplistic level, a language policy is understood as an official document aimed at influencing the spoken and written language inside a company (Thomas, 2008). In other words, a language policy is a written guideline that provides specific instruction about which language should be used in different communication situations (Kankaanrant & Planken, 2010). This implies that language policy is expected to be an important document for a company, as it affects the conformity of internal communications (Forsbom, 2014). A language policy may include several languages and their patterns of use depending on the situation. However, recently, MNCs have tended to include only the use of CCL in their language policy (Forsbom, 2014).

The purpose of introducing a CCL is usually to standardize language use inside a company and its subsidiaries (Swift & Wallace, 2011). While some companies introduce a CCL as an improvement to stimulate efficiency, others implement CCLs as a necessity (Thompson, 2018; Theodoropoulou, 2020). According to Piekkari (2015), the purpose of introducing a CCL is to integrate employees from around the world into the company. Since English is a common second language and an acknowledged business language, introducing English as a CCL often leads to the fact that more people from outside the host country become comfortable with communication inside a company. Piekkari (2015), along with numerous other researchers, mention that there are both benefits and drawbacks of creating a language policy that prescribes using English for internal communications. They are discussed further in the chapter.

English as a CCL

Recent trends towards globalization led to the emergence of English as the language of business and international communication. According to Chong (2012), there are more than 1.2 billion English speakers, among which 743 million are non-native speakers. Moreover, statistics show that English is the most spoken language online, as more than 54% of all content is in English (Yadav, 2018). The second in the list of most frequently used languages online is Russian, and only 6% of all content is in Russian (Yadav, 2018). Thus, English has taken a strong position as an international language, which makes it the usual language of choice when introducing a CCL.

The popularity of the English language as a CCL has been growing during the past two decades. Several large companies, including Siemens, Rakuten, and KONE, introduced English as their preferred language of internal communication (Forsbom, 2014). One of the most common reasons for adopting English as a CCL for companies with headquarters in non-English speaking countries is mergers or acquisitions with a company from another country (House, 2002). The idea behind changing the language policy is to standardize the communication patterns in two companies and ensure an adequate information exchange (House, 2002). It is an example of why introducing a CCL may be a necessity rather than an improvement measure.

A trend towards using English as a CCL is most evident in the European countries after the emergence of the European Union (Forsbom, 2014). Louhiala-Salminen et al. (2005) stated that the trend reached Scandinavian countries, including Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland. For years, the preferred language of business communication for these countries was Swedish; however, the trend has changed at the beginning of the 21st century (Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005). The fact that even Rakuten, a Japan-based company, introduced English as their language of internal communication demonstrates that the trend towards using English as a CCL has reached Asian countries as well. Wang and Wei (2016) note that Chinese corporations are increasingly adopting English as their corporate language. It should also be noticed that Chinese MNCs often use “Chinese English” as the primary language of communication (Wang & Wei, 2016). The fact that the majority of employees from Chinese MNCs are non-native speakers influences the norm-creation of the English language (Wang & Wei, 2016).

Benefits of CCL

All the researchers agree that the introduction of a CCL in MNCs is associated with significant benefits. Piekkari et al. (2005) even state that having a unified language for internal communications is imperative for MNCs, as it is the only way to “minimize the negative effects of language diversity” (Piekkari et al., 2005, p. 335). This section summarizes the benefits of CCL use acknowledged by previous research. Some of these benefits mentioned by Apfelbaum (2010) were introduced in Section 1.5.2 of the present paper.

Policy creation. The introduction of a CCL usually means that a formal policy that regulates communication is created, which is central for MNCs that operate in a multilingual environment. With the increased diversity of language practices and patterns of LL and CCL within MNCs, the need for systematization becomes evident (Forsbom, 2014). Without such systematization, the language use becomes chaotic, which may cause confusion among employees (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999). Moreover, the lack of an established policy may cause decreased efficiency of communication (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999). The introduction of a CCL creates an incentive for creating a language policy that guides the language behavior of employees.

Facilitation of internal communication. Internal communication is usually understood as information flow among the employees of a company or different subsidiaries of one MNC (Sanden, 2020). Without a comprehensive language policy, there is no guarantee that a message will be understood by all the employees (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999). According to Forsbom (2014), a CCL “sets the rules and by this helps to create a harmonious communication so that the messages can reach the audience in the pronounced CL and can be understood by the workforce” (p.15). The harmonization of communication also increases the speed of information flow among the employees and subsidiaries (Feely & Harzing, 2003). Thus, knowledge sharing is improved by the introduction of a CCL. Knowledge sharing is understood as systematic creation, acquisition, sharing, and using strategically important information to achieve corporate goals (Chatterjee et al., 2021). Adequate knowledge-sharing practices facilitate collaboration within companies. The result of these practices is usually improved innovation (Asakawa, 2020).

Improved efficiency of external communication. While the introduction of a language policy is always expected to improve internal communication, it is not always true with external communication. However, when the language policy sets rules for communication with suppliers and customers, it can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of eternal communication (Piekkari, 2015). The efficiency is achieved from the systematization of language practices, which standardize the language of outgoing documentation.

Sense of belonging. The introduction of a CCL means that one language that everybody knows is used for conversations, which implies that anyone can join them. Thus, fewer people start feeling left out in the conversations and develop a sense of belonging to a team through building healthy relationships (Feely & Harzing, 2003). This is especially important for international employees working in teams where the majority are local (Forsbom, 2014). If team members continue to speak their local language instead of a CCL, it may take the international employee to learn the local language to feel part of the team.

Human resources. The introduction of a CCL opens the company for international labor markets (Apfelbaum, 2010). Having access to talents from other countries is crucial, as international talents are known to boost the business performance of MNCs (Hirt et al., 2017). Having introduced English as a CCL creates a natural environment for people from abroad so that they can easily adapt to the workplace culture and communication patterns. Piekkari (2015) states that international talents view CCL as an advantage and join firms with English as CCL more often. Thus, a CCL may be another way for the HR department to attract employees to the key positions.

Economic value. All of the above advantages create economic value for MNCs. The introduction of a CCL negates some of the challenges associated with language diversity in the workplace (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999b). As a result, CCL facilitates information flow and encourages knowledge sharing, which improves innovation (Forsbom, 2014; Feely & Harzing, 2003; Asakawa, 2020). Such improvements in the information flow save time and money for the company (Piekkari, 2015). According to Bigliardi (2013), increased innovation has a positive effect on the financial performance of firms. All these factors added together create significant economic value for MNCs.

Drawbacks of CCL

While there are numerous benefits of a CCL, there are also significant drawbacks that should be mentioned. These drawbacks may have a significant impact on the performance of firms and should be noticed before implementing a language policy.

Missing out on language diversity benefits. As it was mentioned in Section 1.5.1, multilingualism has significant benefits, as it promotes inter-cultural communication and helps to appeal to linguistically diverse customers (Meyer & Apfelbaum, 2010). Vandermeeren (1999) also mentioned that sometimes using the native language of the customer may increase the probability of sale. Thus, many customers prefer using their native language even though they know CCL and can use it for everyday communications. Similarly, using different languages at work promotes cultural learning, which increases bonding among the employees (Piekkari, 2015). Thus, enforcement of a CCL may lead to lost benefits of multilingualism in the workplace.

Problems with internal communication. The introduction of a CCL does not illuminate all the communication problems inside an MNC. Charles and Marschan-Piekkari (2002) state that all companies face problems with internal communications after introducing a CCL. The central reason for that is differences in the proficiency levels of the English language proficiency. Moreover, people from different countries may have different accents, which may be difficult to understand, especially if the level of language proficiency of the speaker or the listener is low (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002). Moreover, Piekkari (2015) states that the introduction of a CCL may create a silencing effect, as people may reduce communication, both formal and informal, due to insufficient knowledge of the CCL. As a result, knowledge sharing and information flow are affected by CCL. Thus, while a CCL can solve some communication issues, it may also cause significant comprehension problems.

Sidetracking. Piekkari (2015) states that sidetracking becomes a significant issue in MNCs, where the level of the CCL mastery differs significantly among the employees. Sidetracking refers to the phenomenon when employees cannot be promoted due to the lack of proficiency in CCL even though they have sufficient professional skills. This may cause dissatisfaction among the employees and decrease the efficiency of human resource utilization.

Isolation. As was mentioned earlier, differences in language proficiency create a silencing effect (Piekkari, 2015). Employees that have significantly lower levels of CCL proficiency in comparison with an average employee may experience a sense of isolation, as they have nobody with whom they can talk (Piekkari, 2006; 2008). These employees may have decreased workplace satisfaction, and the efficiency of their work may also decline significantly. Thus, it is crucial for the managers of MNCs to mitigate the possibility of isolation when implementing a language policy.

Decreased efficiency. The problem of a low level of English language proficiency may incentivize employees to use software for translation. Such translations are of low quality and require additional time to decipher (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999). As a result, the company loses the inefficiency of time use of the employees.

Decreased economic performance. All the factors described above can lead to problems with financial performance due to increased costs (Piekkari, 2015). Moreover, the implementation cost of the policy is high (Säntti, 2001). The problem is that all the documents need to be translated into the new CCL, which requires time and professional services. Additionally, the employees need to be adequately informed about the new policy and trained. The larger the organization, the larger capital investments may be needed, especially when speaking about the companies with many subsidiaries. The implementation of the policy is to be treated as a change, which implies that the change management process needs to be incorporated (Säntti, 2001). Thus, the economic performance of the company may decrease after the introduction of a CCL.

Multilingual Language Policy

An alternative to establishing a CCL is establishing a multilingual language policy. The multilingual approach implies that there is more than one official language of business communication inside a company. Van Mulken and Hendriks (2015) stated that using local languages is more efficient for problem-solving in small teams, which implies that multilingual policy may be preferable in some cases. According to Sanden (2015), the majority of scientific papers discussing language policies focus on the introduction or utilization of English as a CCL. However, there are rare exceptions to that rule.

Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta (2012) analyze a language policy of a company that allowed four official corporate languages, including English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. The policy was implemented to decrease the inequality among the users of different languages. However, the policy resulted in a failure, as the policy was not used in daily practice. The majority of employees continued to use English for the majority of communications when speakers were from different backgrounds. Thus, the policy led to similar problems associated with the introduction of a CCL. All the documents were still created in English, which implied that employees with low English language skills had difficulties in understanding these documents and adhering to the instructions.

The multilingual strategy did not resolve the problem of inequality and isolation by introducing several corporate languages. English was preferred over the other three languages, which created a sense of confusion and inequality among people who tried to use French, Spanish, or Portuguese. Many of the employees felt left out of the information flow, as their English language skills were not sufficient. Thus, Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta (2012) concluded that the multilingual policy did not solve the problems it was meant to solve and led to increased confusion, inequality, and isolation. The de facto corporate language was English, which was different from the de jure corporate languages.

According to Thomas (2007), before implementing a comprehensive language policy, it is crucial to assess the linguistic needs and knowledge of the company. Without such an assessment, any attempts to implement a language policy will probably result in a failure. Moreover, Forsbom (2014) states that transparency and equality need to be the center of attention of multilingual policies to ensure the integrity and systematic application.

Challenges of Language Policies

When implementing any language policy, managers will face several challenges, summarized by Sanden (2020). First, the managers need to think through a strategy for mitigating miscommunication, misunderstanding, and decreased use of rhetorical skills. Second, the managers need to be prepared to address the disempowerment, status loss, and dissatisfaction of some employees. Third, managers will need to face shadow structures that will emerge due to withdrawal from collaboration due to embarrassment or discrimination on a language basis. Fourth, almost any language policy will reorganize power, as group dynamics will be affected by the proficiency levels of English. Fifth, the managers need to be ready to address the emergence of de jure and de facto language policies that will differ among the subsidiaries. Sixth, managers need to align the language policy with the overall business plan to ensure integrity. Finally, the follow-up initiatives of the language policy need to be appropriate in terms of cost and time efficiency.

Sanden (2020) also mentions that for language policies to be successful, managers should avoid reactivity in the implementation of the policy. Moreover, policies should be based upon the assessment of language needs and be responsive. Managers should also ensure that the initiative should be well-financed, as underfinancing is a common cause of language policy failure.

Patterns of Language Use

The studies of patterns of language use are abundant. The majority of studies focus on how CCL is used in a company with one prevalent nationality and the CCL different from the local language (Forsbom, 2014; Kingsley, 2013; Nekvapil & Nekula, 2006; Nekvapil & Sherman, 2009). These studies demonstrate that regardless of the specifics of language policy, the use of LL remains prevalent among employees, especially in informal conversations (Forsbom, 2014; Nekvapil & Nekula, 2006; Nekvapil & Sherman, 2009). Verboom (2016) states that the desire to continue speaking the LL at work is associated with attachment to the local identity and decreased proficiency in CCL in comparison with the LL. Additionally, Verboom (2016) noticed that the language choice might differ depending on whether it is written or spoken. When studying a Finnish MNC, Forsbom (2014) noticed that employees also selected the language of communication based on their idea of the company policy, as they were instructed neither in written nor in the oral form about the language policy in the company.

Other studies focused on companies with two dominant language groups (Loos, 2007; Piekkari, 2005; Vaara, 2005). These cases usually involve mergers and acquisitions, when a company selects a policy to meet the needs of both companies in the merger deal (Loos, 2007; Piekkari, 2005; Vaara, 2005). When two language groups are prevalent, language choice is affected by language proficiency, the local identity of the speaker, and the communication situation (Piekkari, 2005; Vaara, 2005). It should also be noticed that both languages continued to be used on a regular basis regardless of the introduction of a CCL.

Research Gap

The analysis of literature on the topic revealed that there are no studies that compare language use among different departments of one company. Researchers usually use one company without paying attention to the department (Verboom, 2016), several companies from one industry (Kingsley, 2013), or one department from an MNC (Forsbom, 2014). Thus, the present study makes a significant contribution to the current body of knowledge by studying the patterns of CCL use in different departments of a European MNC. Moreover, it increases the generalizability of previous findings by studying a modern Germany-based high-tech company.

Summary

CCL is defined as a prescriptive measure that sets a rule for the company employees concerning which language to choose for official communication inside a company. Its primary purpose is to standardize language use inside a company and its subsidiaries. English is usually selected as a CCL, as it is the most widely spoken and learned language in the world. There are several benefits and drawbacks associated with the introduction of a CCL, which should be accounted for before the introduction of a CCL. Multilingual language policy is a rare alternative to the introduction of a CCL. Regardless of which policy is implemented, LLs continue to be spoken for formal and informal communication. The analysis of literature also revealed that comparing language use patterns among different departments of one company is the primary contribution of the present paper.

Methods

This section focuses on describing the methods utilized for answering the research questions. The section focuses on five aspects of methods utilized for this research. First, the section justifies the utilization of qualitative methods and phenomenological approaches. Second, the section focuses on sampling methods and recruitment procedures. Third, the section describes data collection procedures and justifies the use of online interviews for achieving the purpose. The fourth part of the present chapter focuses on data analysis procedures. Finally, the validity and reliability of methods are discussed. The chapter is concluded with a short summary of the methods used.

Research Method

It was decided to use a qualitative approach to the study due to the exploratory nature of the research. The aim of exploratory studies is to acquire an understanding of a problem or a phenomenon that has no clear definition (Suanders et al., 2019). Exploratory studies do not usually provide knowledge that can be directly translated into practice; instead, it studies a broad area of interest to identify problems for future research (Creswell, 2012). Exploratory studies are often difficult to predict, as they may change courses several times in the process. The general topic of the present research is the utilization of CCL in MNCs with a focus on an international company with two offices in Germany. Even though the question has been discussed by numerous scholars, as presented in the literature review, there is a lack of studies on the attitudes towards CCLs and the patterns of their use in German companies. Thus, the exploratory approach is appropriate for achieving the purpose of the present study.

Qualitative methods are usually used when a researcher needs to analyze behaviors, experiences, and attitudes to understand a phenomenon of interest (Basias & Pollalis, 2018). Qualitative research is usually opposed to qualitative research that requires a precise research question and hypotheses, which are tested using a rigorous methodology (Creswell, 1994). Quantitative methods also presuppose the use of numeric values statistical analysis. A quantitative approach was considered for the present paper, as one of the purposes of this study was to compare attitudes to CCL and language practices among three departments. However, since the population under analysis is small (127 employees), it would be impossible to acquire an appropriate sample that would lead to reliable results. Moreover, the analysis of methods revealed that it would be challenging to quantify the unique experiences of the company’s employees. Moreover, according to Bougie and Sekaran (2016), it is considered inappropriate to use quantitative methods for describing the behaviors and attitudes of the participants. Thus, the idea of using quantitative methods was rejected.

Qualitative research does not require the quantification of information. Instead, it allows time for participants to express their thoughts and ideas about the topic of interest. Hair (2015) states that qualitative research is appropriate when it is impossible to measure or describe variables. Researchers are the central data collection instruments in qualitative studies, as they conduct interviews, gather focus groups, and observe the attitudes of the participants in natural settings (Creswell, 2007). Qualitative methods allow the research to gain insights from a relatively small sample of participants and generate more details about the experiences and behaviors. Thus, it was decided to use qualitative methods for the present research.

Approach Selection

An adequate selection of an approach facilitates the research process. According to Creswell (2007), the approaches in qualitative studies include narrative studies, phenomenological studies, grounded theory, ethnographic studies, and case studies. A phenomenological approach was selected for the present paper, as this research aims at learning about lived experiences of KNIME employees. Alase (2017) states that phenomenological research allows “the interviewees (research participants) to express themselves and their ‘lived experience’ stories the way they see fit without any distortion and/or prosecution” (p. 9). Phenomenology touches upon the essence of the experiences of people. Qutoshi (2018) emphasizes that phenomenological research “focuses on ‘seeking realities not pursuing truth’ in the form of manifestation of phenomena as it is in the form of life world made of interconnected, lived experiences subjectively” (p. 217). Reiter (2011) states that phenomenological research is a valuable tool for acquiring knowledge in management. Thus, it was considered appropriate to use this approach to answer the research questions.

Primary and Secondary Research Methods

Research can be based on primary data, secondary data, or mixed data sources. Primary data is information collected by the researcher using appropriate techniques. There are four sources of primary data, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, and observations (Creswell, 1994). Secondary data is information collected by someone other than the researcher and made publicly available. There are several benefits of using secondary data for research outlined by Saunders et al. (2019). First, the data is collected by professionals, which may be crucial for non-experienced researchers who are afraid to make mistakes during data collection. Second, such data is usually characterized by high validity and reliability. Finally, utilization of secondary data is time- and cost-efficient, as the researcher does not need to spend time and resources on collecting primary data. However, there are also drawbacks of using secondary data, such as the inability to control the data collection process, inconvenient selection of variables, and lack of uniqueness (Saunders et al., 2019). The present paper studies the unique experiences of employees of KNIME. There is no data publicly available about KNIME and its employees; thus, only primary data sources are appropriate for achieving the purpose of the present study.

There are three methods of data collection applicable to quantitative research, including interviews, focus groups, and observations. Surveys are usually used for quantitative research only, as they are easy to quantify (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). Interviews are used to gain meaningful insights from experts in different spheres (Creswell, 2007). Focus groups add group dynamics to the data collection process and allow generating more ideas in a short period (Hair, 2015). As for observations, both qualitative and quantitative research use this method of data collection. While it allows gathering data from the natural environment, the lack of interaction makes it difficult to collect the needed information or interpret the results (Creswell, 2007).

Both focus groups and interviews were considered for collecting data for the present research. While both data collection methods are appropriate, it was assumed that participants might feel uncomfortable about sharing their views and ideas. They may also need to confirm that they violate the company policy by not speaking the CCL, which may be uncomfortable for them. Interviews were thought to create an intimate atmosphere with the participants, which would allow collected reliable data. Thus, it was decided to conduct semi-structured interviews using open-ended questions to collect in-depth information on the phenomena of interest.

Sampling

The population under analysis is all the employees of KNIME in Berlin and Konstanz locations. The total population under analysis was estimated to be 127 employees. In order to ensure the validity of findings, employees working in the company for less than three months were excluded from the sample.

Sampling Method Description

A mix of convenience and purposive sampling was used to select the participants. There are two types of sampling methods: probability methods and non-probability methods. According to Etikan and Bala (2017), probability sampling methods aim at allowing all the members of the population to have an equal chance of participating in the study. The utilization of probability sampling methods allows decreasing bias associated with participant selection; therefore, probability sampling methods are usually used in quantitative studies, where participant selection bias is a significant concern. Non-probability selection methods do not give every member of the population an equal chance to participate in the study (Creswell. 1994). Selection bias in non-probability selection is dependent on the expertise of the researcher. Non-probability sampling is usually used when selection bias is not a significant concern (Cooper and Schindler, 2014). Since the population under analysis is small, there is a low chance of selection bias being an issue. Therefore, non-probability sampling is appropriate for the present research.

There are several types of non-probability sampling, including convenience, purposive, snowball, and quota sampling. Convenience sampling is a method that allows researchers to select participants that are readily available to them (Showkat & Parveen, 2017). This method is cost- and time-effective; however, the associated bias is high. Convenience sampling is usually used when securing a sufficient sample is a significant concern.

Purposive sampling is selecting participants based on the researcher’s judgment based on the purpose of the study (Showkat & Parveen, 2017). This implies that the researcher needs to think through the selection criteria for all the participants to comply with it. Purposive sampling was used, as it was needed to collect data from several departments.

Recruitment Procedures

All the participants were recruited from KNIME’s office in Konstanz. Some of the participants work in Berlin but visit the Konstanz office on a regular basis. Before contacting the potential participants, the head of the Konstanz office was addressed through an official email to allow the research to be conducted. The purpose of the research and the utilized methods were shared with the manager. After the permission was granted, the researcher sent recruitment emails to the potential participants. The recruitment emails included the purpose of the study, the procedures of data collection, and the privacy policy. All of the potential participants agreed to the interviews, which implies that the response rate was 100%. After the participants demonstrated their preliminary agreement to participate in the study, they were sent follow-up emails that described the interview process and asked the participants to select the most convenient time for the interview. All the interviews were conducted in Zoom due to

Sample Size

Qualitative studies do not usually need large samples, as they do not aim at achieving high reliability of findings. According to Boddy (2016), any sample size is appropriate for qualitative research if it produces meaningful insights. Even a sample size of one may be enough if it is justified (Boddy, 2016). According to Creswell (2007), researchers usually stop conducting interviews when they feel that the gathered data is enough to achieve the purpose of the study.

The present research was based on data collected from 18 semi-structured interviews. The participants were evenly distributed among the three departments, including technology, customer care, and marketing (six participants from each department). It was achieved by using purposive sampling.

Data Collection Procedures

The interviews were conducted in congruence with the protocol described by Creswell (2007). All eighteen interviews were conducted in Zoom, which was in accordance with the preferences of the participants. The interview questions were asked consecutively with follow-up clarification questions when needed. There was no time limit for the interviews; however, each one of them took between 45 to 60 minutes. All the interviews were conducted in English. The audio of all meetings was recorded and transcribed after the interview.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical consideration during data intake is required so that the participants do not need to tolerate higher than minimal risk. The online interviews used the lobbies, which implies that the creator selected those who could enter the conference. During the online interviews, it was ensured that nobody was present in the researcher’s and the respondent’s rooms. Names were not used during the interview. All the participants were informed about the fact that the interviews were recorded.

After the interviews were finished, the researcher created transcripts of the conversations and sent them to the participants so that they could make corrections if it was necessary. All the data was stored on a laptop protected by a password, firewall, antivirus, and antimalware software.

Interview Questions

The interview questions were divided into two sections. During the first section, the researcher asked general questions about the background of the participants. During the first part of the interview, language preferences were also collected. The first section included the following questions:

1. How long do you work at KNIME?
2. What are your responsibilities in the company?
3. What languages do you know, and how well do you know them?
4. What language do you use for formal communication at work?
5. What language do you use for informal communication at work?

The second part of the interview allowed the participants to elaborate on the language choices at work as well as express their feelings and attitudes toward the language policy in the company. The second section of the interview included the following questions:

1. What language policies are you familiar with at KNIME?
2. What formal documents about the language policy exit at KNIME?
3. How were you instructed about which language should be used at KNIME?
4. Please, explain your language choices in formal and informal communication.
5. How do you feel about having to speak English at work?

Data Analysis

Thematic analysis was selected for data analysis, as it was considered to serve the purpose of the research. The thematic analysis allows revealing topics, ideas, and patterns present in the responses of the participants. According to Creswell (1994), thematic analysis is most appropriate for understanding the views, opinions, knowledge, values, and experiences of the participants.

Data analysis followed a six-step approach described by Sang and Sitko (2015). The steps are described below:

• Familiarization. The transcripts were read two times to receive a general idea about the information provided by the participants. The transcripts were read separately for each group of the participants to understand what ideas were prevalent among the participants from each department.
• Coding. The keywords with context were highlighted using different colors for different types of codes. Highlighting the context was crucial because different people can apply different meanings to the words.
• Theme searching. This stage was associated with combining several codes into themes. Some codes were excluded from the analysis during this stage, as they did not lead to any common theme.
• Theme reviewing. During this stage, all the themes were reread to detect any repetitions in meanings and ideas. Several themes were united and excluded during this stage.
• Refining themes. During this phase, all the themes were given a name to facilitate future analysis. All the themes were also assessed for how well they fit the argument.
• Writing. The final stage was producing the results by creating a draft of the results section for the present paper.

Reliability and Validity of Methods

Validity is defined as the extent to which an instrument measures what it is meant to measure. The process of validation is understood as a sequence of actions aimed at affirming the accuracy of utilized methods. Creswell (2007) discusses numerous methods to increase the validity of research results. The following measures were used for improving the validity of the present findings:

1. Triangulation. The topic under analysis was examined from different viewpoints. In particular, interviews were conducted in different departments. The opinions and experiences were compared to understand the differences in people’s perspectives.
2. Peer Review. The research methods, interview process, and interview questions were checked by peers. This procedure was associated with minimizing the possibility of bias. Peer review results were used to revise methodology according to the opinion of experts.
3. Bias acknowledgment. The researcher reviewed all the possibilities of bias during data collection and analysis. A literature review was conducted concerning recall biases, selection biases, confirmation biases, and social desirability biases.
4. Results writing. Instead of stating the opinions of the researcher concerning the interview results, a thorough description of the interviews was provided to let the reader decide the outcomes of the study. The purpose of results writing was to increase the objectivity of the research results.
5. Researcher’s Expertise. Creswell (2007) states that the expertise of the researcher in methods as well as in the industry increases the validity of the research. The researcher is highly proficient in conducting semi-structured interviews. Moreover, the researcher has significant experience in working in an MNC with a CCL.

The reliability of a study demonstrates how well the results of the research can be repeated by applying the same methodology (Creswell, 1994). The reliability of findings was ensured by letting the participants review the transcripts of the interviews. The primary purpose of letting the participants review the results was to avoid any mistakes in understanding. Additionally, such a review was used to reduce the tension during the interview process. The fact that the interviews were recorded may have negatively affected the will of the participants to share sensitive information. That is why all the participants were informed that they would have the chance to delete any sensitive information they did not want to share. Additionally, data protection methods were explained to the participants so that they do not have a fear of leaking private data. In other words, the primary methods for improving the reliability of findings were ensuring the privacy of conversations and data protection.

Summary

The present research utilizes a qualitative approach to answering the identified research question. A total of eighteen interviews were conducted (six interviews in each department), and a thematic analysis was applied to the collected data. A mix of purposive and convenience sampling methods was used to ensure a representative sample. During data collection and analysis, the data was protected from security breaches. Privacy protocols were enforced to ensure the reliability of findings.

Results

This section focuses on describing the results of the thematic analysis conducted using the transcripts of the interviews. The first part of the chapter focuses on reviewing the sample characteristics in terms of gender, age, nationality, mastery of languages, role at KNIME, and education level. The second part of the chapter focuses on themes applicable to the first research question. In particular, the section focuses on the knowledge of the employees about the language policy. The third section describes themes attributed to the second research question, which was the patterns of CCL and LL. The fourth section overviews themes concerning the attitude towards using a CCL at KNIME. Every section of the present chapter is divided into three subsections for every department under analysis. The chapter is concluded with a summary of findings.

Review of the Characteristics of the Sample

The sample was divided into three subgroups depending on the department in which they work. Before every interview, several questions were asked about the demographical characteristics of the respondents. These characteristics included gender, age, nationality, mastery of languages, role at KNIME, and education level.

Marketing Department

The marketing department was the most diversified in terms of demographics among the three departments under analysis. Five out of six participants were females, and one of the participants was male. The ages of the participants varied between 28 and 44; five participants were in their thirties. Two of the participants reported their nationality as German, while others identified themselves as Indian, Australian, Russian, and Italian. While all the participants from the department had a high level of English language mastery (B2, C1, or C2), the mastery of German was more varied (A1-C2). Five out of six participants reported having some knowledge of a language other than English and German. The work duration at KNIME of the sample also varied considerably between five months and seven years. While all the participants were from the same department, their roles were different, including the blog editor, marketing communication specialist, event producer, graphic designer, marketing coordinator, and product marketer. The education levels varied between a secondary school diploma and a Master’s degree. Summarized demographic information about the sample from the marketing department is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Demographics of the sample of the marketing department

Customer Care Department

The Customer Care department was less diversified in terms of demographics in comparison with the marketing department. Three out of six of the participants from the customer care department were males, and the other three participants were females. The ages of the participants varied between 26 and 33. Gour out of six participants reported being German, while the other two participants were Swedish and French. Work duration and KNIME of the sample from the Customer Care department varied between four months and five years, and nine months. Four participants had Master’s degrees, and two participants had bachelor’s degrees. All of the participants had a very high level of knowledge of English (B2-C1) and German (B2-C2). Half of the sample worked as solutions engineers, while the other half worked in account management. One of the participants had a joint role of a solutions engineer and a data scientist. Summarized demographic information about the sample from the Customer Care department is provided in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Demographics of the sample of the customer care department

Technology Department

The technology department was least diversified in terms of demographics among the three departments. All the participants in the sample were males aged between 27 and 42. Five out of six of the participants from the sample reported to be German, and one of the participants was American. Five of the participants had Master’s degrees, and one participant from the Technology department had a Doctorate degree. All of the participants had a very high level of knowledge of the English language (B2-C2) and the German language (C1-C2). All of the participants reported speaking at least one other language apart from English and German. Four of the participants were software engineers, one was a senior frontend software engineer, and one was a senior backend software engineer. Summarized demographic information about the sample from the Technology department is provided in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Demographics of the sample of the technology department

Language Policy at KNIME

This subsection describes the themes concerning the language policy at KNIME. As it was mentioned in Section 1.5.4, KNIME has a well-established communication policy; however, a search of a written language policy in the internal documents provided no results. Even though there is a rule that English should be used for all internal communication, the fact that there are no written rules may have affected the understanding of the language policy at KNIME.

Marketing Department

Two themes were identified after the analysis of interviews conducted among the marketing team members, including “unwritten rule” and “internationalism.”

The theme of “unwritten rule” was based upon the responses of all the respondents. The respondents from the marketing department reported that they were not instructed about what language they should use at work during the interview or orientation.

“I don’t think anyone has ever told me that I should speak English or German. So, I decided it for myself.”

“I asked during my interview if German is needed for the job and the answer was “no.” Since the interview was in English, I assumed that everyone should speak English, even though no-one has ever told me that.”

No one from the marketing department was aware that a written policy existed concerning the language policy at KNIME.

“I haven’t seen language policy being written anywhere. It maybe just me, as I have been in the company for less than a year.”

“I don’t know any official written info, it’s just an unwritten rule that English is our common language.”

“English is our main corporate language. It is unwritten policy, I think.”

The theme of “internationalism” upon the responses of several participants who stated that it would be impossible to speak any other language, as all the employees have varying language and cultural backgrounds.

“Language policy is that we use English among us. I know it because there are many international people at KNIME.”

“I think our policy is to speak English among each other at work. This is what makes us different to other German companies. We are an international company.”

It should be noticed, however, that not everyone was sure that English was the corporate language due to the lack of policy.

“The policy is to speak what you’d like to speak depending on who you are speaking to.”

Customer Care Department

Two main themes were discovered concerning the language policy at KNIME after analyzing the interviews of the Customer Care Department, including “unwritten rule,” and “adaptation.”

The theme of “unwritten rule” was included based on the responses of all the participants from the customer care department. All of the respondents stated that they were not familiar with any document concerning the language policy.

“From what I see, I assume that everyone is expected to speak English at work. I have never seen a document that describes the language policy even though I work for the company for almost two years. I don’t think it exists.”

While no participants knew if an official document concerning the language policy existed, some employees mentioned that they were instructed about the language used for internal communications.

“When I had my interview, they told me that we will need to use English most of the times.”

“English is our common language. I know it because CEO told me so.”

The second theme of “adaptation” was based upon the responses of the participants that believed they should be adaptive to the preferences of the interlocutor.

“I assume our language policy is to be multilingual and adapted to your partner. If the person you are talking to prefers German, I can use German. <…> At the end of the day, the purpose of communication is to deliver information. I can use any means to do that.”

“In my opinion, the main language policy is that English is our official language, as it is used in all meetings, events, and all over company gatherings. However, aside from large meetings, we are free to speak any language we like, as long as it fits the preferences of the person you are talking to.”

Technology Department

Two central themes concerning language were discovered after the analysis of interviews of the technology department. They included “unwritten rule” and “adaptation.” The theme of “unwritten rule” was based upon the responses that stated that the participants were not aware of the language policy.

“I don’t think that I have seen a written document [concerning language policy]. I doubt that it has ever existed. I think that it was more of an unwritten rule that everyone silently follows.”

“The official language policy does not exist. It is an unwritten rule to speak English to all the internationals.”

The theme of “adaptation” was based on the response of three participants that stated that the language policy is to use common sense when selecting the language of communication.

“I’m not aware of any policies. I just use common sense. If a person is German, I speak German. That’s what everyone else does.”

“I think the company policy is to use English when speaking to someone from another country. It’s like we need to adapt.”

Patterns of CCL and LL Use

The second research question was to understand the pattern of CCL and LL use. In particular, the researcher intended to understand in which situations the employees preferred CCL and in which situations the employees preferred LL. In order to answer this research question, all the participants were asked a series of short questions concerning the language the participants preferred for every formal and informal communication situation, including spoken and written communication. As a result, a response matrix was created for every department to determine the language use patterns along with themes that explain these patterns.

Marketing Department

The analysis of the language use patterns in the marketing department revealed that the majority of respondents from the marketing department use English for all the formal and informal communication situations. Only of the respondents used German for informal communication in Slack (internal company messenger) and informal face-to-face meetings. The language choice matrix for the marketing department is provided in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Language choice matrix for the marketing department

The central theme of the language choice explanation was “internationalism,” which was partially described in the previous section. This theme was based upon the statements of the participants, who said that, since the company and the department are multinational, it would be inappropriate to speak any language other than English at work for both informal and formal communication.

“We speak English 95% percent of the time, as our team is international. We have people from India, Russia, Australia, German, and America here. All of them know English, so it’s only natural that we speak English all the time.”

“I don’t speak German very well. Some of my colleagues are also not that fluent in German. So, we speak English all the time, and our German colleagues want to maintain the international spirit of the company.”

Customer Care Department

The patterns of language use in the customer care department were not as clear as in the marketing department. In the majority of formal communication situations, all the participants preferred English to German, as it was the language that everyone could understand. Moreover, it was ensured by the managers that English was used during formal communication. However, the participants reported speaking German in informal communication situations, and five out of six respondents reported using German even for work-related communication in Slack. The language choice matrix for the customer care department is provided in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Language choice matrix for customer care department

The central theme that prevailed during the explanation of the language choice patterns was “purposefulness.” The theme emerged based on the responses of several participants explaining that they selected the language that would best suit the purpose of the conversation.

“I think that using English is a very official way of speaking. I do not want to sound official in cafeteria. Being official sometimes does not suit the purpose of work-related conversations. Sometimes, speaking German appears more appropriate.”

“I use German for non-work-related stuff. Being natural is better when you want to take your mind away from work.”

Technology Department

The analysis of interviews in the technology department revealed that the majority of participants used German formal and informal conversations. In the technology department, English was reported to be used only in formal emails and reports. The language choice matrix for the technology department is provided in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Language choice matrix for the technology department.

The primary theme that explained the language choice in the technology department was “convenience.” The theme emerged as all of the participants stated that they would select the language that would be most convenient for all of the participants of the conversation. Since the majority of employees in the technology department were German, and everyone else had a high level of proficiency in the German language, German was the language of choice in the majority of the situations.

“I would say we use a mix of German and English but German always dominates, so I chose German. I think it’s most convenient for everybody as we live in Germany.”

“Not sure why but we always slack each other in German. I think it is seen as less official than email. Emails might be forwarded to other teams if needed. Slack conversations are less formal, and it is more convenient for us to speak German.”

“I guess it [language choice] depends on who is joining the meeting. If everyone speaks German well, we speak German, as it is more convenient.”

Attitudes towards Multilingualism

This section focused on attitudes towards a multilingual culture of KNIME and the feelings they have due to people speaking different languages at work depending on the communication situation. It was assumed that employees from different departments would have different feelings about the patterns of LL and CCL use.

Marketing Department

Two clear themes emerged in the marketing department when speaking about the attitudes towards multilingualism, including “internationalism” and “being left out.” On the one hand, the participants expressed their pride in being a part of the international company. They saw multilingualism as a unique feature of KNIME among other German companies.

“I love our international multilingual environment! KNIME is the best!”

“I feel proud, when I tell my friend about the international atmosphere at KNIME. They envy me, when they hear that people can speak three different languages at the same table.”

At the same time, four out of six participants stated that they were sorry they could not join conversations in German with their colleagues from other departments. They felt “left out” as their level of mastery of the German language was not very high.

“During lunch I would like to speak with my German colleagues not in my team, but they always speak German with each other. It makes me a bit disappointed, but I understand.”

“I would love understanding German better so I could join my German speaking colleagues during lunch.”

“I like our international environment; I love practicing English at work. I wish I could speak more with German coworkers, but they speak German all the time. I feel left out.”

Customer Care Department

The customer care department was more diversified in terms of language use patterns, as was mentioned in Section 4.4.2. As a result, the strongest theme in this department was “confusion.”

“In the begging for me it was confusing, like when do I use each language? But I got used and it feels very international.”

“I feel confused sometimes, but I am used to it.”

“Sometimes I am confused but I always adapt to the audience.”

“Internationalism” was also a strong theme in the customer care department.

“It is very interesting and international environment with all these languages.”

Technology Department

Even though five out of six respondents felt no discomfort about the patterns of CCL and LL use, three of them expressed concern about the possible confusion of new employees. Additionally, the respondent from the USA also admitted that he was confused at the beginning. Thus, the theme of “confusion” was also strong in the technology department.

“I think it would be useful to have more guidelines on language policies for new joiners. I can imagine it might be confusing for new hires.”

“When I just joined the company, I had to take German languages courses after work. Previously my level did not allow me to express myself freely with my colleagues in German, so I was struggling. <…> That was a bit confusing. I was told that knowing English would be enough to work at KNIME.”

Summary

The analysis of interviews revealed that different themes emerged in different departments. A summary table of all the identified themes is provided in Table 7 below.

Table 7. Summary of themes by department and research question.

Discussion

The results of the analysis revealed that the different departments at KNIME had different demographic characteristics. In particular, the marketing department was the most diversified among the three departments in terms of cultural, linguistic, and educational background, while the technology department was the least diversified department. These demographic characteristics appeared to have a significant impact on the patterns of CCL and LL use. In particular, in the marketing department, the prevalent language was English for all types of communication, as there was no clear cultural majority. The members of the team explained their language choice as being natural due to the international nature of the team. It would be inappropriate for them to speak any other language for all team members to understand.

The situation was the opposite in the technology department of KNIME. The majority of the technology team are German, which makes German the prevalent language of communication regardless of the corporate policy. German was reported to be used both for formal and informal communication, both orally and in writing. The only participant from the department who was non-German reported to have taken German lessons, even though he had perfect knowledge of English.

In the customer care department, there was a strong German majority present. However, the department was more diversified than the technology department. Thus, the language choice patterns were more complicated, as people tended to use CCL for formal communication and LL for informal communication. It should also be noticed that all the participants reported using CCL for reports and formal emails, as these can be shared or forwarded to international employees. However, it may be concluded that the demographic composition of the department had a significant impact on the patterns of CCL and LL use among KNIME.

The participants explained their language choices through the themes of convenience, internationalism, and purposefulness. Speaking German to somebody who knows English better or during meetings would not serve the purpose, as nobody is required to know German. Thus, using German would not serve the purpose of communication, which is usually to deliver information fast. Moreover, it would be inconvenient to use LL for passing information to international employees. However, using the German language for information sharing among German employees would serve the purpose of the conversation and would be convenient for everybody. Moreover, using English for reports and emails is also convenient and purposeful, as information passed through these channels can be shared with employees from different countries.

The findings of the present research are in line with the current body of knowledge. Forsbom (2014) stated that the customer support team of a Finnish MNC used LL for everyday purposes for convenience and utilized CCL for formal conversations. Similarly, Verboom (2016) stated that the employees of a Dutch MNC also continued to use their LL when they found it convenient. Sanden (2020) stated that the emergence of de jure and de facto language policies was a significant challenge to the implementation of a comprehensive language policy. Other researchers also stated that employees continued to use LL at work regardless of the formal introduction of English as a CCL (Kingsley, 2013; Nekvapil & Nekula, 2006; Nekvapil & Sherman, 2009). However, the present research adds that the patterns of CCL and LL use may be different among different departments of an MNC and their demographical composition.

When speaking about the language policy, it should be noticed that the majority of employees of KNIME were not aware of the language policy at KNIME. The theme of “unwritten rule” means that the employees assumed that they were supposed to use English for formal communication because everybody acted that way. Some employees assumed that it was only natural to use English all the time, as the environment was international. In other words, the perception of the language policy depended on the group dynamics. However, the language policy was not formally explained to employees, which caused confusion. Even though some participants reported to have been instructed about the language policy, they were a minority.

The fact that most participants were not instructed about the official language policy demonstrates that it was implemented inconsistently at KNIME. The situation was similar to that in the Finnish MNC described by Forsbom (2014), where the employees of the customer support team were not instructed about the CCL. Sanden (2020) stated that inconsistent implementation of a language policy might lead to significant discrepancies in the patterns of CCL use. Employees at KNIME perceived the language policy differently depending on the department. While the marketing department believed that it was self-evident that English is the CCL of the company, as the majority of employees in the department were international, the employees in other departments believed that they needed to adapt to their colleagues’ needs when selecting the language for communication. Thus, it may be concluded that the inconsistency in the explanation of the language policy led to a different understanding of the language policy among employees, which was consistent with previous findings (Forsbom, 2014; Sanden, 2020).

The prevailing theme in the customer care and technology departments was “confusion,” which implied that the employees were not sure which language they should use in which situations. This was consistent with previous findings (Forsbom, 2014; Kingsley, 2013; Piekkari, 2015; Sanden, 2020; Verboom, 2016). The participants reported being afraid to talk to somebody they do not know, as they did not know which language they should choose.

The attitude of the employees towards the patterns of CCL and LL use varied among the departments. The central theme on the subject prevalent in the marketing department was “internationalism,” which implied that the participants demonstrated that language switches created a warm atmosphere of internationalism in the company. The marketing team enjoyed this atmosphere; however, some concern was expressed due to the fact that non-German employees could not talk to their German colleagues from other departments. The theme of being left out was mentioned by other researchers (Sanden, 2020; Verboom, 2016). The positive attitudes towards diversified patterns of CCL and LL use can be explained by the positive effect of multilingualism, which was briefly discussed in the literature review (Meyer & Apfelbaum, 2010; Piekkari, 2015; Vandermeeren, 1999). While the theme of “internationalism” was also present in other departments, it was not as clear as in the marketing department.

It should also be noticed that the analysis of interviews revealed that employees at KNIME did face some drawbacks associated with the implementation of CCL. In particular, no participants reported cases of sidetracking or cases of miscommunication due to differing cultural backgrounds. Verboom (2016), as well as Sanden (2020), reported that company employees might experience the problem of not being able to develop as a professional at a company without sufficient knowledge of English. Moreover, the problem of “silencing” was not mentioned by any of the participants. This may be explained by the fact that the majority of respondents had very high levels of proficiency in the English language. Verboom (2016) reported that the level of CCL proficiency had a significant impact on the attitude towards the language policy. However, several cases of isolation were detected at KNIME, which may be concerning in the future.

Acknowledgement of Limitations

While the conclusions drawn from the analysis of qualitative data were based upon the use of valid and reliable methodology, there are some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the convenience sampling strategy may have affected the results. The participants were used on the geographic principle keeping in mind the purpose of the study. The majority of participants worked in the Konstanz office or visited this office regularly. Thus, the findings of this research apply to this office of KNIME and not to all four offices of the company.

Second, the questions may have provoked some dishonesty in the participants. In particular, the participants were asked their position at KNIME, which may have uncovered their identity. The problem is that some of the positions at KNIME are unique, which implies that the participants may have understood that, if needed, their identities could be uncovered. This may have caused them to avoid expressing their negative feelings due to the fear of being punished for that.

Finally, all the interviews were conducted online, which may have affected the richness of the data. According to Johnson et al. (2019), while phone and online interviews are appropriate for acquiring qualitative data, in-person interviews are preferred. The problem is that online interviews may feel unnatural to the participants, which may prevent them from expressing their true feelings. However, it should be noticed that KNIME employees use Zoom on a daily basis, which makes them feel natural during online conferences. Thus, the possible bias associated with using online interviews was partially mitigated by KNIME’s communication practices.

Implications of Findings

There are several implications of research that can be drawn from the results of the analysis. First, the patterns of CCL and LL use are highly dependent upon group composition and dynamics. Thus, when assessing the linguistic needs of the company, it is crucial to collect data from different departments to ensure that the views and needs of all employees are represented. The same is true for assessing the satisfaction of employees with the current language practices. Employees from all departments should participate in the surveys concerning language policy implementation.

Second, the analysis of data revealed that many employees felt confused about the current language policy, as it was not clearly formulated in a written document. Some participants also suggested that they could benefit from formal instructions and training concerning the use of the CCL. Thus, it is recommended to have a written language policy and CCL use training to avoid confusion about the expectations from the employees. Standardization of the language practices is expected to improve language use consistency among the departments.

Third, when creating a language policy, managers should understand the motivation of different patterns of language use. The results of the present paper revealed that people are guided by purposefulness and convenience when selecting the language for communication. Thus, these two principles should be the core of the language policy to ensure adherence. However, these values may be true only for KNIME employees. Therefore, it is recommended that an assessment of motivations for different language use should be conducted before the creation of a language policy.

Finally, several participants reported having the feeling of being left out due to the inability to join conversations in LL. The employees should be trained to understand that by preferring the LL over the CCL, they create a negative experience for some of their colleagues. Inclusion of this idea in the formal company communication training may improve employee satisfaction.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should focus on increasing the generalizability of findings. In particular, future research should touch upon companies of different sizes, types, industries, and countries. It is especially crucial to focus on companies outside Europe. The majority of studies reviewed for the present paper featured European MNCs (Forsbom, 2014; Mulken and Hendriks, 2015; Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta, 2012; Verboom, 2016). This study also focused on a European high-tech MNC. Thus, it is recommended to focus on other countries, such as the BRICS countries, as these emerging economies have a high potential in the future.

Future studies should also assess more departments from one company. The findings of the present paper revealed that language practices might differ significantly depending on the department. Thus, it may be hypothesized that there are more unique patterns of language use depending on the department. These patterns should be studied to add to the current body of knowledge.

Finally, the analysis of the literature revealed that the majority of studies on the field of CCL policies and multilingualism in the workplace utilize qualitative methods. It is recommended to utilize quantitative methods or a mixed-method approach to increase the reliability of findings. The research may focus on the effect of language policies on employee satisfaction or efficiency.

References

Alase, A. (2017). The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A guide to a good qualitative research approach. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 5(2), 9-19.

Asakawa, K. (2020). Disaggregating the headquarters: implications for overseas R&D subsidiaries’ reporting and the subsidiaries’ knowledge-sharing patterns. Journal of Organization Design, 9(1), 1-30.

Ayega, E. N., & Muathe, S. (2018). Critical review of literature on cultural diversity in the work place and organizational performance: a research agenda. Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(1), 9-17.

Basias, N., & Pollalis, Y. (2018). Quantitative and qualitative research in business & technology: Justifying a suitable research methodology. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 7, 91-105.

Bigliardi, B. (2013). The effect of innovation on financial performance: A research study involving SMEs. Innovation, 15(2), 245-255.

Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(4), 426-432.

Bougie, R. & Sekaran, U. (2016) Research methods for business: A skill building approach. Wiley.

Charles, M. & Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002). Language Training for Enhanced Horizontal Communication – A Challenge for MNCs. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 9-29.

Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., Vrontis, D., & Piccolo, R. (2021). Enterprise social network for knowledge sharing in MNCs: examining the role of knowledge contributors and knowledge seekers for cross-country collaboration. Journal of International Management, 27(1), 100827.

Chew, K.-S. (2005). An Investigation of the English Language Skills Used by New Entrants in Banks in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 423-435.

Chong, C.S. (2012). English as a Lingua Franca. Web.

Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publications.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4^th ed.). Pearson.

Cletus, H. E., Mahmood, N. A., Umar, A., & Ibrahim, A. D. (2018). Prospects and challenges of workplace diversity in modern day organizations: A critical review. HOLISTICA–Journal of Business and Public Administration, 9(2), 35-52.

Cogo, A., & Yanaprasart, P. (2018). “English is the language of business”: An exploration of language ideologies in two European corporate contexts. English in Business and Commerce, 5, 96-116.

Craft. (2022). KNIME. Web.

Dijkstra, B. E., Coler, M., & Redeker, G. (2021). The multilingual workplace realities of Polish truckers: A case study in the Netherlands. Multilingua, 40(5), 589-616.

Elia, S., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Piscitello, L. (2019). The impact of cultural diversity on innovation performance of MNC subsidiaries in strategic alliances. Journal of Business Research, 98, 204-213. Web.

Etikan, I. and Bala, K. (2017). Sampling and sampling methods. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 5(6), Article 00149.

Feely, A. J. & Harzing, A.-W. (2003). Language Management in Multinational Companies. Cross-cultural Management. An International Journal, 10(2), 37- 57.

Ferner, A., Edwards, P. & Sisson, K. (1995). Coming unstuck? In search of the “corporate glue” in an international professional service firm. Human Resource Management, 34(3), 343-361

Forsbom, A. (2014). The myth of common corporate language-a case study of a Finnish MNC’s customer support team (Master’s thesis). Aalto University.

Fredriksson, R., Barner‐Rasmussen, W., & Piekkari, R. (2006). The multinational corporation as a multilingual organization: The notion of a common corporate language. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 11(4), 406-423.

Hair, J. F. (2015). Essentials of Business Research Methods. Taylor & Francis Group

Hirt, C., Ortlieb, R., Winterheller, J., Bešić, A., & Scheff, J. (2017). Developing international talents: how organisational and individual perspectives interact. European Journal of Training and Development, 41(7), 610-627.

House, J. (2002). Communicating in English as a lingua franca. In: Foster-Cohen, S. (Ed.) EUROSLA Yearbook 2, (pp. 243–261). Benjamins.

Ibrahim, D. S., Suharto, R. B., Zainurossalamia, S., & Samarinda, E. K. (2020). The important role of employee satisfaction to support employee performance through quitting intention. Productivity management, 25, 682-697.

Johnson, D. R., Scheitle, C. P., & Ecklund, E. H. (2019). Beyond the in-person interview? How interview quality varies across in-person, telephone, and Skype interviews. Social Science Computer Review, 0894439319893612.

Kankaanranta, A. & Planken, B. (2010). BELF competence as business knowledge of internationally operating business professionals. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 380-407.

Kingsley, L. (2013). Language choice in multilingual encounters in transnational workplaces. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(6), 533-548.

KNIME. (2021). Communication at KNIME [PowerPoint slides]. Internal training, KNIME.

KNIME. (n.d.). KNIME Software. Web.

Loos, E. (2007). Language policy in an enacted world: The organization of linguistic diversity. Language Problems and Language Planning, 31(1), 37-60.

Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M. & Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 401-421.

Louhiala-Salminen, L. & Kankaanranta, A. (2012). Language as an issue in international internal communication: English or local language? If English, what English? Public Relations Review, 38(2), 262-269.

Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D.& Welch, L. (1999). Adopting a common corporate language: IHRM implications. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(3), 377-390.

Matthews, L. C., & Thakkar, B. (2012). The impact of globalization on cross-cultural communication. Globalization-Education and Management Agendas, 325-340.

Meyer, B., & Apfelbaum, B. (2010). Multiculturalism at work. John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Nekvapil, J., & Nekula, M. (2006). On language management in multinational companies in the Czech Republic. Current issues in language planning, 7(2-3), 307-327.

Nekvapil, J., & Sherman, T. (2009). Pre-interaction management in multinational companies in Central Europe. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(2), 181-198.

Palazzeschi, L., Bucci, O., & Di Fabio, A. (2018). Re-thinking innovation in organizations in the industry 4.0 scenario: New challenges in a primary prevention perspective. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 30. Web.

Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Säntti, R. (2005). Integration or disintegration? Human resource implications of a common corporate language decision in a cross-border merger. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(3), 330-344.

Piekkari, R. (2006). Language effects in multinational corporations: A review from international human resource perspective. In: Stahl, G. & Björkman, I. (Eds.), Handbook of research in international human resource management (pp. 536– 550). Edward Elgar.

Piekkari, R. (2008). Language and careers in multinational corporations. In: Tietze, S. (Ed.), International management and language (pp. 128–137). Routledge.

Piekkari, R. (2015). Language in International Business. Edward Edgar Publishing.

Piekkari, R., Vaara, E., Tienari, J. & Sdntti, R. (2005). Integration or disintegration? Human resource implications of a common corporate language decision in a crossborder merger. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(3), 330-344

Qutoshi, S. B. (2018). Phenomenology: A philosophy and method of inquiry. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 5(1), 215-222.

Reiter, S. (2011). A strategy for delayed research method selection: Deciding between grounded theory and phenomenology. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(1), 35-46.

Sanden, G. R. (2015). Corporate language policies: What are they. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 3(11), 1097-1101.

Sanden, G. R. (2016). Language management x 3: A theory, a sub-concept, and a business strategy tool. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 520–535.

Sanden, G. R. (2020). Ten reasons why corporate language policies can create more problems than they solve. Current Issues in Language Planning, 21(1), 22-44.

Sang, K.J.C. & Sitko, R. (2015) “Chapter 8: Qualitative Data Analysis Approaches” In: Gorman, K.D. and MacIntosh, R. (ed). Research Methods for Business and Management (2nd ed.) Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers

Säntti, R. (2001). How cultures interact in an international merger. Case MeritaNordbanken (Doctorate Dissertation). University of Tampere. Web.

Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students. Pearson.

Showkat, N., and Parveen, H. (2017). Non-Probability and Probability Sampling. Research Gate. Web.

Swift, J. S., & Wallace, J. (2011). Using English as the common corporate language in a German multinational. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(9), 892-913.

Theodoropoulou, I. (2020). Blue-collar workplace communicative practices: A case study in construction sites in Qatar. Language Policy, 19(3), 363-387.

Thomas, C. A. (2007). Language policy in multilingual organizations. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics (WPEL), 22(1), article 5.

Thomas, C. A. (2008). Bridging the gap between Theory and Practice: Language Policy in Multilingual Organizations. Language Awareness, 17(4), 307-325.

Thompson, M. C. (2018). Multilingualism in the workplace: Communicative practices between store owners and assistants in Chinese shops in Cape Town (Doctoral dissertation). Stellenbosch University. Web.

Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R., & Säntti, R. (2005). Language and the circuits of power in a merging multinational corporation. Journal of management studies, 42(3), 595-623.

Van Mulken, M., & Hendriks, B. (2015). Your language or mine? or English as a lingua franca? Comparing effectiveness in English as a lingua franca and L1–L2 interactions: implications for corporate language policies. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36(4), 404-422.

Vandermeeren, S. (1999). English as a lingua franca in written corporate communication: findings from a European survey. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, F. & Nickerson, C. (Eds.), Writing Business: genres, media and discourses (pp. 273–291). Pearson Education.

Verboom, R. K. (2016). Corporate versus local language: Employees’ language choices in a multinational corporation in the Netherlands (Master’s Thesis), University of Twente. Web.

Wagner, W. (2019). Using IBM® SPSS® statistics for research methods and social science statistics (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Wang, W., & Wei, L. (2016). Chinese English in as lingua franca in global business setting: A case study of ongoing emails of a foreign company in China. SHS Web of Conferences. 25, 01013.

Yadav, A. (2018). English Language Statistics – an Exhaustive List. Web.