Increasing the Use of Multiple Contexts in International Business Research: The Case of Idiom Usage in Cross-Cultural Settings
Increasing the Use of Multiple Contexts in International Business Research: The Case of Idiom Usage in Cross-Cultural Settings
ABSTRACT
Scholars focus on different aspects of “context” in order to better understand the variability underlying a particular phenomenon because of distinct cultural or institutional settings in which the phenomenon takes place.Although scholars often describe the “context" in which their research takes place, it remains undemonstrated whether they capture the "polycontextuality," or multiple embedded contexts inherent in cultural phenomena. While the use of multiple, “polycontextual” variables has increased over time, most IB studies have yet to take into account the multiply embedded layers of context; including the macro-environment, cultural, or temporal-spatial considerations. One pervasive cultural layer, given little attention, is the use idiomatic expressions. This paper examines the case of the degree of local adaptation of Puerto Rican employees to the corporate culture of the multinational companies in which they work. Specifically, this will be measured by the degree of familiarity of business idiomatic expressions of the Puerto Rican employees.
Key Words: IB Research, Context variables, Cross-cultural
Increasing the Use of Multiple Contexts in International Business Research: The Case of Idioms in Cross Cultural Settings
According to Rousseau and Fried (2001) the “term context comes from a Latin root meaning ‘to knit together’ or ‘to make a connection’” and “contextualization is a way of approaching research where knowledge of the settings to be studied is brought to bear in design and implementation decisions.” In essence, Rousseau and Fried (2001) focus on how scholars should contextualize their research so that concepts can be interpreted adequately according to their distinct cultural setting as well as the international environment. Nevertheless Shapiro, Von Glinow & Xiao argue that contextualization is often treated as a singular phenomenon and thus introduce the term ‘polycontextuality,’ “which refers to multiple and qualitatively different contexts embedded within one another.” Thus, polycontextuality refers to the multiple layers of context that “cannot be easily observed or historically studied (2007: 129).” In this study, we recognize the importance of polycontextuality and seek to build on the conceptual framings of the concept.The goal is to improve our methods for assessing those facets of context that are traditionally so hard-to-measure by sight or survey methodologies alone.
Culture is assessed at the individual and national level by measuring the psychological and philosophical beliefs or perceptions of individuals as well as national culture distance. Our proposed methodology helps assess a different aspect of context which enables us to better understand how constructs and methodologies might differ in distinct cultural settings or countries. Rousseau and Fried suggest that contextualizing calls for rich descriptions, direct observations, and comparative studies. Rich description leads to focusing on the setting: drawing comparisons in terms of comparability of settings and participants from prior research, establishing the meaning and effects of different organizational and cross-national frames of reference, identifying the potential variability in causal variables, and evaluating the role of history and time. Indeed, most of these descriptions would require more qualitative research; our methodology accounts for the role of an often used linguistic device, the idiomatic expression, which is nonetheless little studied in the international business context. Rousseau and Fried (2001) also suggest evaluating context through direct observation that looks at the multi-level nature of events and best practices across settings, but also the factors that control for context. In addition, they call for more comparative studies across different cultural and institutional phenomena.
Nevertheless, Shapiro, Von Glinow & Xiao argue that survey assessment and the use of sight is not sufficient to describe the different layers of context. They state that “there are multiple and qualitatively different sources of potential meaning in a context… that seem to escape typical measurement tools (2007: 131).” Thus, our study’s assessment of the cross cultural use of idioms alone does not give a full measure of polycontextuality in its entirety, although it represents a key aspect of the little understood individual cultural elements of context. In addition, variables which assess an individual’s psychological and philosophical state are more likely to bepolycontextually sensitive. Polycontextuality often includes verbal and non-verbal contextual cues that are difficult to measure.
Many theoretical frameworks have been utilized to explain various aspects of the international business environment and its operations, yet limitations remain when it comes to providing meaningful insight into the multiply embedded contextual nature of the international business landscape. Albeit some recent literature has focused on the polycontextuality of the international business environment (Shapiro et al., 2007; Von Glinow, Shapiro & Brett, 2004), much of this literature is theoretical in nature and does not empirically assess the degree to which polycontextuality and its implications are considered by IB scholars in their investigations. The international business literature has grown at an explosive rate and many theories and frameworks have been developed. Early theories focused primarily on micro- or macro-economic factors, or managerial level, business-oriented theories. The emergence and rationale for the existence of the multinational firm is attributed to structural imperfections (Bain, 1956), monopolistic advantage (Hymer, 1960), and oligopolistic reaction (Flowers, 1976; Graham, 1978; Knickerbocker, 1973). The product life cycle (Vernon, 1966) and incremental stage theory (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977, 1990) also provide an overview of firm internationalization processes. Transaction costs impact the mode of entry into a host country by influencing internalization decisions (Williamson, 1975; Gatignon & Anderson, 1988). At the same time available resources (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984), and networks (Granovetter, 1992), impact a firm’s ability to attain a competitive advantage. Macroeconomic variables like interest rates, exchange rates, and inflation can also lead firms to diversify internationally (Rugman, 1979) and enter international markets to take advantage of these favorable macroeconomic conditions (Aliber, 1971). Country institutional and social structures also influence internationalization (Kojima, 1973, 1978). Accompanying these theories are many frameworks, which attempt to take into account elements of culture and the environment, the most famous being Hofstede’s (1991) cultural dimensions, Porter’s (1990) “diamond” model of national competitive advantage, and Ghemawat’s (2001) CAGE framework.
Although international business theoretical frameworks have become more multi-disciplinary in their approach to assessing the international business environment, these theories still have many limitations in explaining the different aspects of context. Dunning’s (1977) eclectic framework attempts to provide a holistic overview to rationalize and explain multinational existence, growth, and performance by focusing on ownership, location, and internalization advantages. Nonetheless, the eclectic framework fails to address the entirety of the multiply embedded layers of context in which international firms operate today. Thus, polycontextual, or “context-embedded” research seeks to take into account the broader and more nuanced facets of the dynamic environment with its many contextual factors influencing a firm’s success and failure.
Polycontextuality
In this paper we utilize Von Glinow, Shapiro, and Brett’s (2004) concept of polycontextuality, which is defined as “multiple and qualitatively different contexts embedded within one another” (Shapiro et al., 2007). According to Shapiro et al. (2007) most existing international business research tends to focus only on a singular aspect of the international business environment which fails to take into account the multiple contexts present. In addition, research methods that primarily utilize interviews, questionnaires, or participant observation overlook the many contextual cues beyond verbal data that include non-visual aspects of context, such as the historical, cognitive, and emotional aspects of a situation.
Most current international business research methods focus primarily on items that are easily measured by sight, or upon readily collected survey data containing relatively unambiguous items such as an individuals’ race or gender; a nation’s economic, cultural, social, or legal system employed (Von Glinow et al., 2004; Shapiro et al., 2007); or a firm’s entry mode, process of internationalization (Ricart, Enright, Ghemawat, Hart & Khanna, 2004), performance, or other easily measureable financial characteristics. Expanding on Rousseau and Fried (2001), Shapiro, Von Glinow, and Xiao (2007) went further, and identified seven categories of potentially multiply-embedded context variables.
The contextual variables identified by Shapiro, Von Glinow, and Xiao (2007) include the seven categories temporal-spatial, environmental, cultural, psychological, philosophical, communication, and sensory; as well as the 34 words and synonyms representing the dimensions of these different categories given in Table 1.
------
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
------
In the present study, however, we limit our focus to only on the cultural contextual variables at the individual level.
Culture.The category culture includes dimensions of culture at the individual and national levels. Individual-level culture refers to the perceptions, behaviors, values and beliefs of individuals as well as psychological dimensions. These include shared understandings about the kinds of behavior likely to evoke approval, disapproval, toleration or sanction, within particular contexts. These individual-level culture variables are operationalizedin IB research using measures that assess the values, beliefs, and perceptions of individuals, like the Rokeach Value Survey, and the Schwartz Value Survey. For example, Shin, Morgeson, and Campion, (2007) use the individual-level culture variable “achievement orientation,” which measures “achievement/effort (maintaining challenging goals and exerting effort); persistence (persistence in the face of obstacles on the job); and initiative (willingness to take on job responsibilities and challenges).” The dimension psychological assesses feelings, emotions, and affect. These include a person's internal state of being and involuntary response to a situation, job, or individual based on his feelings or emotions. For example a psychological variable measures how individuals feel about different components of their jobs, such as overall satisfaction, knowledge, role ambiguity, or feelings (such as level of anger) about being in a particular job situation.
National-level culture refers to culture at the country-level. It is generally assessed using Hofstede’s (1991), or Kogut and Singh’s (1988) measure of cultural distance, or by nationality of a firm or its employees.
This paper is focused on the case of Puerto Rico, specifically, the experience of business communication in English in the particular cultural context of the multinational companies in Puerto Rico, through the familiarity with idiomatic expressions.
In the business world, as in the sciences, English is used as the lingua franca. Most business transactions between different countries are done in English. Many of these countries speak English as a second or third language.The present paper deals with the degree of local adaptation of Puerto Rican employees to the corporate culture and business etiquette of the foreign multinational companies in which they work in Puerto Rico. Specifically, this aspect of cultural context will be measured by the degree of familiarity of business idiomatic expressions of the Puerto Rican employees and through the rate of familiarity of proper business etiquette behavior observed in their companies.
Historical Imperative
Puerto Rico has had the presence of North Americans ever since U.S. troops invaded its coastlines in 1897 (Garcia, 1976; Figueroa, 1969). The U.S. government declared English the only language of instruction in schools in 1898 (Figueroa, 1969), but in view of having been under Spanish domain for more than 500 years, the U.S. government changed the Island’s language of instruction to Spanish.
Thus, Puerto Rico has two official languages: Spanish and English. English is considered the second language. It is a mandatory course from first grade up to university. Still, and in spite of having more than 12 years of English instruction as a second language, most Puerto Ricans consider speaking English a true challenge. Many Puerto Ricans of all ages and of all professions invest time and money to improve their languages skills in English through continuing education courses.
Meanwhile, many multinational corporations, encouraged by duty free access to the U.S. and tax incentives, have invested heavily in Puerto Rico since the 1950s (Figueroa, 1969). This meant that many Puerto Ricans started working with supervisors and executives who only spoke English. Many of the supervisors that work in these companies are native speakers of English, often with basic, or no knowledge of Spanish. This presents a challenge for many employees who are Spanish speakers with various degrees of English proficiency, from very basic to more advanced levels.
The approach taken in this study is primarily influenced by the Intercultural Business Communication and Business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF) fields. In these frameworks, language is seen as a resource. As cited in Kankaanrant and Planken (2012), English plays an essential role in spoken communication in the business context, such as negotiations, meetings, email and advertising. English is considered a key component of business knowledge required in today’s global business environment. It is an intrinsic part of communication in multinational settings and a fact of life for many business people (Akar 2002; Bilbow 2002).
Each language has its own idiosyncrasies and peculiarities that may produce different terminology, even in business. Some languages may share grammatical and semantic patterns, others, such as Japanese and English, don’t. These are details that the professionals must take into consideration when preparing for international and intercultural business interactions (Aktan and Nohl 2010). Idiomatic expressions may cause confusion among the second language speakers. These cannot be translated literally since the audience won’t understand their meaning. “A literal translation for specific words would leave the foreign audience perplexed” (Aktan and Nohl, 2010: p. 4).
Business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF)
Some studies have shown that problems in business interactions arise when there is linguistic imbalance between native speakers of English and non-native speakers of English (Rogerson-Revell, 2008; Pullin, 2010). Still, other studies have pointed that BELF speakers avoid and overcome misunderstandings in spite of the usage of non-standard forms of English.
The phenomenon of BELF has produced many hybrid forms of English in countries where English is spoken as a second, third, or even fourth language. As BELF is adopted in other countries, it receives linguistic and cultural influence from the non-native speakers (Kankaanranta and Planken, 2010; Nickerson, 2005; Charles, 2007). BELF will carry the non-native speaker’s culture, as well as his/her mother tongue discourse (Kankaanranta and Planken, 2010). In the companies included in Kankaanranta and Planken (2010) study, the researchers found that there was a hybrid version of English that contain features from the speakers’ mother tongue. These processes are similar to one of the theories of the pidgin and Creole language development in which speakers of different language background simplified their language to facilitate communication in a highly multilingual setting (Alleyne, 1988; Mufwene, 2001; Devonish, 1986).
If the employees feel that the frame of reference in communication is the native speaker, the challenge of communicating appropriately becomes quite acute. Their language affected their perception of themselves or others. In Puerto Rico, most Puerto Rican non-native speakers of English, feel ashamed and intimated when speaking English in public. In many cases, lingua franca speakers complain that native speakers of English don’t adjust or simplify their language. But, sometimes the frustration emerges due the non-native speakers’ lack of proficiency in English. Sweeney and Hua (2010) explain that often, the miscommunication problems in intercultural business interactions are due to native speakers of English. They argue that native speakers of English continue to speak idiomatically.
Still, the majority stated that overall, in spite of the cultural and linguistic differences between non-native and native speakers of English, there were hardly any breakdowns in communication in business interactions.
With network communications going global, many people around the world with perhaps no access to ESL teaching learn English via the entertainment industry, such as by watching cable television and Hollywood movies in English.
Small talk is also a communicative strategy that has shown to help build business rapport more easily, and develop solidarity that can help mitigate tensions and anxieties (Pullin, 2010). In interviews carried out as part of a study, the participant admitted the following: “ Learning banking terminology in another language was not a problem, but finding the right expressions in ‘ordinary small talk’, or acting assertively in negotiations and being able to suddenly and effectively express opinions or convey nuances in meetings, was difficult” (Charles, 2007:p. 273).
According to Charles (2007), corporate management must pay more attention to the choice of language(s) and business etiquette used and adopted in corporate communication, as it is a complex issue. Language choice is a managerial issue that must not be ignored. Language is seen as a power-wielding instrument in organizations. Indeed, given these imperatives, idiomatic expressions usage and business etiquette observed by multinational companies may represent a challenge to local adaption on part of Puerto Rican employees, such that:
P1:The more the Puerto Rican employees, non-native speakers (NNS) of English are exposed to English idiomatic expressions and business etiquette observed in their companies, the more likely there will be local adaptation to the corporate culture.
DISCUSSION
Based on the literature review discussed in this paper, multinational corporations throughout the world are affected by BELF. There are challenges that non-native speakers of English face when interacting with native and non-native English speaking managers and/or colleagues in multinational companies, both at the linguistic level as well as at the psychological level. Studies showed that there is some degree of local adaptation to the corporate culture and to the native English speaker’s language. Although some miscommunication instances where found in some studies cited in this paper, these were not a cause for breakdowns in communication. In Puerto Rico, there are many multinational companies operating, thus the communication processes in these corporations are most likely affected by BELF and by IBC as well. Still, studies in these areas, using the case of Puerto Rico, are lacking. Thus, the proposed study in this paper is to examine important constructs of cultural context and uncover whether there is a degree of local adaptation to corporate culture and language, and how the regulative forces affect these interactions.