Study on International Business Professionals

Description
A characteristic of trust is that it is more easily built in close-knit communities where common ground and a common language are already established. Building trust is, therefore, a challenge for business professionals who use English as a shared working language in the multilingual environment of multinational companies.

15

ISSN: 2153-9480. Volume 2, Number 1. December - 2011

Does language affect trust in global professional
contexts? Perceptions of international business
professionals
Jane Kassis Henderson
ESCP EUROPE Business School, Paris Campus
Paris, France

Leena Louhiala-Salminen
Aalto University School of Economics
Helsinki, Finland

Abstract
A characteristic of trust is that it is more easily built in close-knit communities where common
ground and a common language are already established. Building trust is, therefore, a challenge for
business professionals who use English as a shared working language in the multilingual
environment of multinational companies. In this exploratory article, concepts from trust research
and principles from the field of interactional sociolinguistics are used to throw light on the interplay
of language and trust. Based on an analysis of survey and interview data from business
professionals in globally operating companies in several countries, findings indicate that language
related factors both inhibit and foster trust building.

The article argues that it is crucial for individuals to develop awareness of the language and
communication practices that foster trusting relations. This has implications for training and
executive development programmes and reinforces claims that the pragmatic communication
aspects of language use should be emphasized.

Introduction
International business operations in global professional contexts are today performed mainly
through global networks by individuals working in, for example, multicultural teams, multinational
project groups, or global virtual teams. As these units tend to be composed of people who speak
different mother tongues, they are also multilingual. This aspect, however, seems to be less
emphasized in the literature than the fact that they are multicultural (see e.g DiStefano &
Maznevski, 2000; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000; Earley & Gibson, 2002; Iles & Hayers, 1997).

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 16

As Charles (2007, p. 261) has pointed out, only language can enable individuals and companies to
communicate, so it is of crucial importance to examine developments in the language and
communication through which globalization occurs. These developments include not only a greater
diversity of natural languages spoken, but also a greater choice of the channels and means of
communication available with ICT (information and communication technologies), making
exchanges possible across spatial and temporal boundaries when individuals are geographically
dispersed (Wilson, Straus, & McEvily, 2006). Consequently, language differences can pose
challenges to those involved in international business operations.

Because of the interdependency of individuals employed in the multinational and multilingual
teams and networks, one particular challenge is building relations with co-workers. This is
especially difficult in virtual teams working in different geographical locations, and research on
teams in internationally operating organizations has shown that language-related issues can have a
negative impact on interpersonal relations, trust, and workplace culture (see e.g. Schweiger et al. ,
2003; DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000; Lagerström & Andersson, 2003; Iles & Hayers, 1997; Kassis
Henderson, 2005). In the international workplace, perceptions of intellectual incompetence and
uncooperative attitudes can be caused by divergence in discursive practices (Rogerson-Revell,
2007), and these negative perceptions can, in turn, lead to mistrust. A characteristic of trust is that it
is more easily built in close-knit communities where common ground and a common language are
already established (Larkey, 1996; Pan Wong, Scollon & Scollon, 2002; Gumperz, 2003).
Therefore, building trust is often a challenge for individuals in the multilingual workplace (Holden,
2002; Schneider & Barsoux, 1997; Henttonen & Blomqvist, 2005; Kassis Henderson, 2010).

It is today widely acknowledged that the language predominantly used in global professional
contexts is English. However, using one dominant language for communication does not mean that
common ground is automatically established, although it is recognized that common ground is
indispensable for the building of trust. Professionals in multilingual teams cannot be compared to
members of close-knit communities who share common ground and understand each other
implicitly; for the latter, there is little ambiguity over the interpretation of signals conveying the
trustworthiness of individuals. This is because English as a “lingua franca” is a language that is only
shared to a limited extent and can be a misleading source of cues for gauging trustworthiness.

Another reason for the complexity of the language issue in building trust and relationships is linked
to the perception of competence and in particular the need to distinguish between technical and
behavioural or affective competencies. Individuals see themselves and others with specific language
identities as, for example, monolingual, bilingual, or multilingual, and this gives rise to expectations
of competence based on pre-conceived standards using monolingualism as a yardstick (Grosjean,
1985, 2010). Consequently, one problem with trust, (which is assessed in part through the
perception of an individual?s ability as we will show later), is that levels of competence tend to be
based on the native speaker model. However, each individual communicator is a specific speaker-
hearer, whether using one, two, or many languages and has a particular language competence. If
competence is assessed according to the ability of an individual to use a specific language system,
this can be a cause of misplaced trust as he or she may possess the technical language skills but lack
the behavioural and affective competencies required in a multilingual context. Working through
English as a shared language thus involves an element of vulnerability and risk, which is not present
in interactions between members of the same language community who share social meanings and

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 17

interpretations implicitly. In an international community, an individual, therefore, needs to establish
his or her competence and reliability before gaining trust.

The aim of this paper is to explore the role of language in building, maintaining, or inhibiting trust
in international professional contexts. We specifically focus on the language-trust relationship as
experienced by internationally operating business professionals and analyze their perceptions and
attitudes related to language use and trust in their daily professional activities. The article also aims
to show the importance of addressing the question of how language affects trust in language and
intercultural training programmes.

In earlier studies (Scollon & Scollon, 1995; Gumperz, 2003), the concept of “trust” has emerged in
research on language and communication in multilingual and intercultural contexts. However, in
research on trust undertaken by scholars in the fields of organizational studies and international
business, there has been little investigation of language use in multilingual settings. Likewise, in
spite of the wide use of ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) in global communication, we have very
little research on the possible impact of the various native languages of the speakers and/or their
cultural and behavioural norms on ELF communication. Therefore, by directly addressing the
relationship between trust and language in global professional communication, this exploratory
study aims to fill a research gap.

Literature Review
This section presents earlier research related to language and trust. We first discuss the relationship
between language and trust in business contexts and then introduce work on the concept of English
as a lingua franca in international professional communication. The section that follows the
literature review outlines the theoretical framework that we use in the analysis of our data.

Language and trust in professional business contexts
Research on international management teams has shown that establishing trust and relationships is
closely connected with language issues and that language is a particular challenge in connection
with socialization processes and less so for the technical aspects of work (Maznevski & Chudoba,
2000; Lagerstrom & Andersson, 2003; Schweiger, Atamer & Calori, 2003, p.137; Goodall &
Roberts, 2003 as quoted in Kassis Henderson, 2005). Technical competence alone, be it in the
domain of language and/or in the field of professional expertise of an individual, is insufficient for
building trust in the contexts under investigation in this paper (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995,
p.717; Griffith, 2002). However, as is shown below, the role of language in the socialization
processes, which are unanimously deemed essential, is often overlooked in spite of the fact that,
without language, the various bonding activities that are mentioned, cannot take place.

Lagerstrom and Andersson (2003, p. 94) stress the fact that social interactions, because of the tacit
knowledge that resides within individuals, are the core of knowledge management, and
information technology has only a supportive function. They show that establishing mutual
understanding and trust is closely connected with the language strategy and behaviour of
individuals, and they explicitly acknowledge the importance of the language issue in interpersonal
interaction. They quote executives who say: “But….we all speak our own kind of English, which
means that we need to socialize and spend time together to learn each other?s way of speaking.
Therefore you must also be interested in meeting and learning to know new people” (p. 91). The

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 18

expression “our own kind of English” is clearly an example of the emerging “emotional
solidarity” among ELF speakers, and shows that using English as a lingua franca can be an
opportunity to develop common ground and a common language (see e.g. Kassis Henderson,
2010; Lagerstrom & Andersson, 2003; Knapp, 2002; see also Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta,
2011).

In a study of trust in global virtual teams, Henttonen and Blomqvist (2005, p. 115) identify the
importance of “individual tolerance and experiences, social similarity, forms of socializing, caring
talk, personal conversations, storytelling, humour, ritual and ceremony” as elements essential to
trust building. They also emphasize the need to create a common culture and procedures (p. 117).
They do not, however, raise the question of the language or languages of communication, which
would enable all these acts of communication to take place. Similarly, Thomas, Zolin and
Hartman (2009) clearly demonstrate the central role of communication in developing and
maintaining trust. Their main focus is on the quality/quantity of information and its impact on trust
in different professional relationships; “language” is not examined–the word is not even
mentioned once in the entire article–but is naturally implicitly present in the concept of
communication.

The necessity of investigating the language and communication challenges posed by globalization
has been clearly spelt out by Charles, as “only language can enable individuals and companies
(and countries) to communicate” (Charles, 2007, p. 261). In the same article, she demonstrates
that informal oral communication deserves to be considered of paramount importance in
multinational companies (MNC) “as it is essential for networking and for forming bridging and
bonding relationships between employees which in turn contribute to knowledge sharing and the
accumulation of social capital within the company” (Kalla 2006 as quoted in Charles, 2007, p.
272).

Speaking other languages as well as English is reported to contribute to the development of trust.
Individuals who know or choose to learn other languages spoken within the organisation are
perceived as more cooperative communicators than monolinguals. Research findings reported by
Louhiala-Salminen (2002, p.122), Goodall and Roberts (2003, p.159), and Kassis Henderson
(2005, p. 73) show that establishing trust can be achieved through making the effort to speak the
language of other team members from time to time in aside communications and in small talk
even if it is not the dominant shared working language.

Other studies point to the importance of managing language as a corporate asset, claiming that the
true cost of the language barrier can?t be measured in terms of translating and interpreting but in
damaged relationships (Feely & Harzing, 2003). As Schneider and Barsoux state: “A relationship
must be established before business can be conducted. Without that foundation, how could you
trust this person to uphold the contract or perform their jobs” (1997, pp. 36-37).

Research on communication in MNCs has demonstrated that there is often a lack of awareness of
what communicating across languages and cultures involves (Marschan, Welch & Welch, 1997).
This communication requires specific skills, attitudes, and values and cannot be reduced to the
obvious aspect of foreign language capability or a knowledge of cultures, important as these may
be (Holden, 2002). In this connection, calls have been made for a broader perspective in the
assessment of communication skills of employees, with recommendations that these should not be

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 19

tied to an employee?s ability to use a specific language system (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari,
2002). Indeed, technical language competence without affective and behavioural competencies is
acknowledged to be insufficient for relationship development (Griffith, 2002).

The concept of English as a lingua franca in international professional communication
As global professional communication is increasingly conducted in non-native English, it is only
natural that the concept of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) in international professional
communication has recently drawn scholarly attention (see e.g., Vollstedt, 2002; Poncini, 2004;
Planken, 2005; Kankaanranta, 2006; Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2006 ). For example, the role
of culture, and accordingly behaviour, has been discussed: What is the relationship between
language and culture when communication takes place in ELF?

As argued by Smit (2003), participants in ELF interactions, by definition, take part in intercultural
encounters. Different stances are taken by researchers towards the cultural and behavioural norms
observed by ELF speakers. Some argue for the idea that ELF communication involves the cultural
and behavioural norms associated with the use of the English language; others consider ELF as a
“culture-free” pidgin-like language, and a third group claims ELF carries a mixture of the
participants? linguistic and cultural norms with it. The standpoint taken by most recent ELF
research seems to blend these hypothetical extreme options and assume a constructionist view that
stresses the particular ELF situation and its participants

For example, the two-dimensional description of ELF as both “linguistic masala” and “language
stripped bare” by Meierkord (2002) has been frequently cited and seems to grasp the essential:
“language stripped bare” refers to the observations by Meierkord that, for instance, discourse
participants only make use of politeness phenomena that are experienced as culturally relatively
neutral and impersonal. The “linguistic masala” is created by the heterogeneity of ELF users and is
shown as a highly dynamic “communicative hybridity” (Meierkord 2002, p. 124); i.e. the speakers
incorporate their own cultural norms and linguistic backgrounds as well as the situation specific
requirements into a mixture that works for them, in the particular situation.

Louhiala-Salminen, Charles and Kankaanranta (2005; see also Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen,
2010) studied ELF encounters within a context of business mergers and introduced the concept of
BELF (English as a Business Lingua Franca) to refer to the language that business professionals
from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds use to conduct their daily work activities. The
concept BELF was applied to emphasize the overall communicative goal and the domain of
language use. According to Louhiala-Salminen et al. (2005, pp. 403-404), the BELF speakers share
the B (the context of business) and the E (English), and, to some extent its discourse practices, but
are, at the same time, separated by the previous knowledge and experience connected with their
various native tongues, their native discourse practices, and their own, often hidden and implicit
rules of communication. From the perspective of trust, the “hidden and implicit rules of
communication” are interesting as their role is crucial for trust-building in close-knit communities.
However, as was discussed in the previous sub-section, recent research has shown that contrary to
these forces that may separate ELF speakers from each other, there are strong implications of
emotional solidarity among the various members speaking ELF or BELF in their global professional
activities. This, again, is a factor that helps to establish trust.

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 20

Theoretical framework
Defining trust
The topic of trust has engendered a considerable body of research in the field of organizational
studies. Scholars in many disciplines have studied the causes, nature and effects of trust and there
has been much discussion of the conditions that lead to trust.

The creation of trust depends on two factors: an individual?s propensity to trust and the perception
of the other party?s trustworthiness (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995). For the present study,
reference will be made in particular to two widely quoted articles from the Academy of
Management Review: “An integrative model of organizational trust” (Mayer et al., 1995) and “Not
so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust” (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt & Camerer, 1998).
They define trust as “a willingness to render oneself vulnerable to another based on confident
positive expectations” (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395) regarding the other party?s “ability,
benevolence and integrity” (Mayer et al., 1995). The authors make an interesting parallel between
these three factors, called trustworthiness cues, and Aristotle?s Rhetoric which suggests that “a
speaker?s ethos is based on the listener?s perception of three things: intelligence, character,
(reliability, honesty), and goodwill (favourable intentions towards the listener) (Mayer et al., 1995,
p. 717, footnote 1). We will next present the definitions by Mayer et al. (1995, p. 717-718) of these
three terms, which will be referred to subsequently in the interpretation of the empirical data.

Ability is defined as that group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to
have influence within some specific domain. The domain of the ability is specific because an
individual may be highly competent in some technical area, affording that person trust on tasks
related to that area. However, the same individual may have little aptitude, training, or experience in
another area, for instance, in interpersonal communication. Benevolence is the extent to which a
trustee (an individual in whom trust is placed) is believed to want to do good to the trustor, aside
from an egocentric profit motive or extrinsic reward: “It is the perception of a positive orientation of
the trustee toward the trustor” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 719). In the language used by our respondents
and in the interviews reported in this article, benevolence tends to be referred to as emotional
solidarity, tolerance and interpersonal trust. Integrity refers to the trustor?s perception that the
trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable. Such issues as the consistency
of the party?s past actions and the extent to which the party?s actions are congruent with his or her
words affect the degree to which the party is judged to have integrity (Mayer et al.,1995, p. 719). In
everyday language, this would be referred to as the reliability, honesty, or fairness of the other
party. An important distinction made between benevolence and integrity is that benevolence
increases as the relationship develops whereas integrity is more salient as a trustworthiness factor
early in a relationship (Mayer et al. (1995, p. 722). As our data emphasizes the importance of the
time factor in building trust, we will refer more to the cue of benevolence than to that of integrity in
our analysis.

In interpreting our empirical data, we do not make the distinction between trustee and trustor as in
their interactions, international business professionals are both trustees and trustors at the same
time. Therefore, given the interdependence of individuals working towards common goals, the
notion of relational trust developed by Rousseau (1998, p. 399) is of particular relevance to this
study as it shows the importance of interpersonal interactions. Rousseau defines it as follows:
“relational trust derives from repeated interactions over time between trustor and trustee.
Information available to the trustor from within the relationship itself forms the basis of relational

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 21

trust.” As this repeated interaction over time takes place through language practices and strategies,
the way in which verbal language is used is critical for building relationships and these
relationships, in turn, are critical for establishing trust (Schweiger et al., 2003).

Building common ground and a common language
A process of mutual adaptation needs to take place for trustworthiness to be established, and this is
done through finding a common language. For the language to become common, common ground
has to be built up (Scollon & Scollon,1995; Pan, Wong Scollon & Scollon, 2002; Gumperz, 2003).
However, it is important to note that sharing a language involves more than exchanging messages
according to the rules and conventions of a certain lexical, syntactical and phonological system. It
implies sharing social meanings and interpretations, which poses a particular challenge when a
language is used outside a context in which there is a close identification between speakers (Kassis
Henderson, 2005). The discourse practices, conventions, and cultural preferences that form
communication cultures are not shared by all individuals who bring into professional interaction
their own culture-bound views of how encounters should be conducted but also discourse practices
stemming from their respective mother tongues (Louhiala-Salminen, Charles & Kankaanranta,
2005, p.404). Discussing ELF interactions, Seidlhofer has remarked:

English as a native language, like any natural language, is full of conventions and markers
of in-group membership such as characteristic pronunciation, specialized vocabulary and
idiomatic phraseology, and references and allusions to shared experience and cultural
background. (Seidlhofer, 2001, p. 136)

However, in international professional communities, teams and networks create their own working
cultures and related conventions. In those communities, ELF speakers do not aim at emulating
native speakers but at creating a common language that works for them, in the particular situation.

Reference has been made to perceptions of intellectual incompetence and uncooperative attitudes
caused by different ways of speaking or interacting (Rogerson-Revell 2007, p.118). Co-operative
strategies, on the other hand, are illustrated in Poncini?s study of meetings, which shows the
participants build solidarity and common ground in different ways to facilitate their shared goals
(Poncini, 2003 & 2004). Cooperation implies mutual accommodation, and this has important
consequences for the ENL (English Native Language) and ELF debate, as is emphasized by
Seidlhofer (2001, p.147):

It may be that situations occur in which „unilateral? approximation to native speaker norms
and expectations not shared in ELF interaction leads to communication problems and that
mutual accommodation is found to have greater importance for communicative effectiveness
than „correctness? or idiomaticity in ENL terms.

(For a discussion of the ontological and epistemological premises of conceptualizing ELF, BELF
and ENL, see also Rogerson-Revell & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010).

Linking Trustworthiness and Language
Principles from the area of interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz, 2003; Scollon & Scollon, 1995)
are used in the present study to elucidate the interplay of language and trust. This branch of
scholarship is concerned with analysing the communicative practice in speech exchanges between

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 22

individuals in interactions in order to show how the diversity of their cultural backgrounds may
affect interpretation. From this perspective, interaction involves individuals both inferring what
others intend to convey and monitoring how their own contributions are received (Gumperz, 2003,
p. 218). In order to illustrate how the trustworthiness cues discussed in the above subchapter can be
applied to the present analysis of multilingual interactions, the following observation of the Scollon
and Scollon, reporting on over twenty years of research on intercultural intra-organizational
communication, is apt:

Most miscommunication does not arise through mispronunciation or through poor uses of
grammar....The major sources of miscommunication in intercultural contexts lie in
differences in patterns of discourse as for example the different conventions for placing the
main point at the beginning or the end of a conversation, the so-called topic-comment
structure of sentences. (Scollon & Scollon, 1995, p. xiii)

Unfamiliar communication patterns or metacommunicative routines influence interpersonal
perceptions and attitudes and, therefore, can inhibit trust or foster it. Discourse strategies, which
would send signals of trustworthiness in a home context, risk being misinterpreted, which can have
negative social consequences and result in the speaker being considered uncooperative (Gumperz
1982) and inhibit the development of trust. The individual who has the ability to read discourse
patterns can be judged trustworthy in spite of making grammatical errors as s/he has the required
aptitude, training, or experience in interpersonal communication in multilingual contexts. Referring
to the trustworthiness cues discussed in the above section, this implies that the competent
international professional should have the ability as a hearer to read the discourse structure of
another; the benevolence to adopt a positive orientation and be prepared to take the time to listen
and build emotional solidarity; and the integrity to be a reliable and fair team-player accepting the
principles governing ELF communication (for a discussion on such principles in BELF
communication, see Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010, p.207).

The empirical data of the present study will be examined within the theoretical framework
described in this chapter. We will look at trust building through the trustworthiness cues of ability,
benevolence, and integrity and will refer to the principles of interactional sociolinguistics when
interpreting our data. The various dimensions of common language and their roles in establishing
common ground will also be analyzed.

Data and Methodology
The data of the present study consist of two different data sets. The first set comprises 14 semi-
structured interviews with senior executives in a major European company, and the second set of
607 open-ended answers to a survey question.

The interviews were conducted in the course of a research project on the management of language
diversity in senior management teams. The objective of the interviews was to identify best practices
for managing linguistic diversity and in particular, the consequences of using English as the
working language in multilingual contexts. The interviewees were senior executives in a major
European company and eight of them were German and six were French; in their respective teams,
there were executives from other European countries, among them British and Spanish. Ten of the

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 23

interviews were conducted by telephone and four using videoconference technology. They lasted
between thirty and fifty minutes and were all conducted in English.

The interview guide which was sent out before the interviews contained the following themes:

1) What policies and practices have been adopted to facilitate interaction and cooperation?
2) What are the consequences of using English as the working language of a plurilingual,
cross-border team?
3) What are the factors that hinder productive communication and team-building?
4) What particular challenges do native English speakers, and speakers from other specific
language communities, face?
5) What advice about managing communication processes would you give other
management teams operating across cultures and languages?

The second data set, which consists of a total of 607 open-ended survey answers, is part of a larger
research project conducted among internationally operating business professionals. The project
focused on the communicative success of global professional communicators, which was
investigated among business professionals in five globally operating companies. The five
companies operated in the fields of logistics (Company A), cargo handling (Company B), IT,
business intelligence services and consulting (Company C and E), and welding solutions (Company
D). Three of the companies (A, B, C) were listed on the NASDAQ OMX Helsinki Ltd in Finland
with net sales ranging from EUR 4.7 billion to 1,700 million and with the number of employees
ranging from 34,000 to 9,500 in 2009. The two unlisted companies (D, E), although smaller in size,
were also global operators. For example, one of them had subsidiaries in 13 countries, personnel
numbered 550, and net sales totalled EUR 80 million. The survey respondents altogether
represented 31 different native languages.

The data we analyzed for this paper were collected with a survey instrument that as a whole
collected both quantitative and qualitative information. The answers analyzed for the present
purposes were respondents? reactions to the question: “What makes communication in the global
business environment successful?” The answers typically varied from one word (e.g. clarity) to a
description consisting of two-three sentences or parts of sentences (e.g. Being polite to everybody;
Keep my passion and interest on the business; with responsible attitude).

In the present study, both the interview data and the survey answers were analyzed from the
perspective of trust building. Neither the interviews nor the survey question did explicitly address
the question of trust, and trust was not a specific subject of inquiry when the larger research projects
were designed. However, in all of the interviews, and in a large part of the survey answers,
references were made to socialization processes, trust and relationship building. Patterns were
identified in our data by the recurrence of these and other key words or phrases such as trust
relationships, time to learn how to interact, mutual respect, cooperation, trusting attitude, sharing
understanding, mutual understanding, common understanding, and establishing relations.

It emerged from the interviews with the senior executives (who are also team leaders) that they are
aware of the challenges related to multilingual communication, and they also play a key role as
facilitators in the day-to-day communication processes. The way in which they talk about language
issues shows how these executives contribute to the trust building process. The survey answers

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 24

come from business professionals with international experience at various organizational levels.
Their responses also referred to the various dimensions of trust building and were fully in line with
the views of the interviewees.

To analyze the combined interview/survey data from the perspective of trust building, we first
carefully evaluated the transcripts of the interviews and the answers to the open survey question to
find the various comments that could be related to trust building. Three main approaches to
trustworthiness and language use emerged, and we organized the data accordingly: the use of ELF,
the use of English as a native language, and the use of other languages. The following section will
report the findings and present examples of our data according to these categories.

Findings
Our data show that, according to international business professionals, the use of English as a Lingua
Franca affects trust in global professional contexts. It is for this reason that we have placed the
focus in this section on three elements: common ground in ELF communication, different categories
of speakers (native or non-native), and the use of languages other than English in global
professional contexts.

Using ELF to find a common language and a shared understanding
The importance of reaching a common understanding through a constructive dialogue was
emphasized. A respondent wrote “common understanding what is necessary to get things done–
common understanding about objectives–sound understanding about cultural habits and
communication differences.” One interviewee said they are sometimes “hurting” the English
language, but “the international language is understood by every nation and that?s the main issue.”
It was also mentioned that a high level of standard or “Oxford” English is not a requirement as the
stress is on a common understanding. Reference was also made to using language creatively as in
the following remark:

We built a new English language in that people found some word in order to have a common
language between German and French, English language, but I?m quite persuaded it was not
a good English language but we didn?t care; that means we found a new word...and during
years we have a common English language but which was not real English....it?s a good way
to have a common agreement on different words or topics, it means that if we put two
people together and if they have the willingness to work together they can find a new
language.

This is a recurrent practice in plurilingual teams (Firth 1990) when new words and new ways of
speaking are negotiated. An example of this phenomenon and the significance of the sharedness of
language were given by a respondent who emphasized the “same language between parties
(Kemplish);” in other words, the definition of the language, i.e. “Kemplish,” was coined from the
name of the company and English.

One underlying theme of particular relevance to building trust was the importance of the time
factor; the observation was made that “it takes more time to read behaviour in an international
team.” Also, knowing people personally before communicating with them satisfactorily through

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 25

information communication technology was emphasized, as e.g. in the following quote from an
interview:

A lot depends on how well you know the people you?re working with and you need to have
teams built up over some length of time. If you know them you can go on a video
conference and talk to each other, no problem at all. But if you go to a video conference and
you don?t know the party on the other side, it is quite difficult.

One respondent emphasized the fact that the process of building what he calls “trust relationships”
takes time, as it is important to get to know how the other person communicates and how to talk to
him or her. Exactly the same issue was emphasized throughout the survey answers, e.g. “knowing
the other person personally, knowing the other persons work;” “build up relationship;” and
“knowing others by person makes the communication easier.” The empirical data reported here
shows the importance of repeated interactions over time for the development of the benevolence
that constitutes one of the cues of trustworthiness (see p.5).

The professionals who were interviewed reported that informal interpersonal communication is
perceived as being much more difficult than talking about technical issues. One manager
commented that

When we have personal or private or specific management meeting…it is also using a lot of
very soft words and nuances, because of a problem saying I?m not so satisfied with that or
that....in English we have to find the real and good word to avoid any misunderstanding in
order not to hurt the people and so we look at our training in school or in the company we
are not used to use these special nuances, human nuances and in our job it is necessary.

In the same vein, another claimed that speaking is easy but understanding questions is “sometimes
difficult…when you are missing some subtlety in English.”

This example shows the difficulty of expressing human nuances as opposed to the relative comfort
these business professionals feel when dealing with technical issues. The same feeling was
expressed in the following way by another respondent: “at the beginning for me it was more
difficult to speak informally than formally because the technical aspect was easier than the
informal. But now it?s the same although for the informal discussion it depends on the topic.”
However, both the interview data and the survey answers clearly demonstrate that the ability
required from these professionals in the global environment consists of both a technical competence
and interactional competence. This holistic ability can be seen to refer to one of the three
trustworthiness cues discussed in the section describing the theoretical framework for the study.

Communicating with native English speakers
Our interviewees point to the complicity and the bonding that takes place when English is not the
native language of either party. For example when French and Germans form a team together, there
is a sense of equality and fairness; the language is “neutral” as one executive put it: “Speaking the
same kind of English facilitates the interaction … and the cooperation because your partners have
the feeling they are accepted as they are.” In addition, there is an advantage because “the fact you
have to speak English helps to break the village or tribal tendency in some teams, which tend to
have a closed attitude, a tribal attitude.”

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 26

Reference to the concern people feel for each other and the emotional bonding of ELF speakers
shows their benevolent attitude, as in the following remark. One executive explained how he felt
constrained and frustrated by having to use English in particular situations where there is the need
to express a feeling or attitude: “but sometimes there are situations when I want to express... a very
comprehensive feeling or attitude.... and I?m looking then for the right expressions & words....and
in this action sometimes I feel a little bit constrained.” He goes on to say that it is sometimes
frustrating, but all his international colleagues in the rest of the world have the same feeling at
times, so they help each other

Via a common dialogue they take then this concern…because ok can express this concern
and try and elaborate together and to participate in the discussion at least normally we come
to a result and come to a common meaning and attitude to this.

In contrast, some respondents referred to possible tensions between NS and NNS speakers of
English, as e.g. in “We have to deal with some users who are native English speakers but are still
unable to communicate effectively,” and “with native English speakers the problem is that they use
a lot synonyms” (for more on in-group and out-group attitudes in the context of ELF usage, see
Kassis Henderson 2010). An observation was made by one executive about different attitudes to
English between ENL and ELF speakers:

It also seemed to be that the British colleague was annoyed by the way the French or
German were talking. They have a lot of difficulty not to teach the others how to use the
English language rather than concentrate on common work....It is difficult if there is a group
of colleagues and just one is speaking his native language. The other ones are speaking
English as the common one. In our position we?re better off as we have the same starting
position. It is more difficult for the native speaker as he is more or less isolated from us with
our continental English.

This suggests that some native speakers may be perceived as being less trustworthy.

One respondent mentioned the efforts made by some native speakers who adopt a more co-
operative attitude and adapt the way they speak: “Usually our English is not so bad and the
English people are polite enough if we are in discussion and communication to be a little bit
careful with their language, pronouncing quite well and not too fast.” But this is not always the
case, as an interviewee reported: “they speak very quickly using words normally you never heard,
for them it?s difficult to adapt and take into account the other guys are not native speakers.” The
difficulty of understanding native English speakers, the British and Americans, came up
frequently in the interviews. Their speech is “too fast, too unclear,” “their accents are difficult to
understand,” and “they use words nobody knows.” On this issue, one executive commented that it
is a problem if the speaker is unaware of the difficulties the partners may have to understand him,
because, for example, of the speed of speech, low voice, or use of slang expressions.

Based on the data in reference to the trustworthiness criteria of ability and benevolence (Mayer,
Davis & Schoorman 1995, p.717), it appears that some native speakers are not trusted as
concerning ability, for they have insufficient aptitude, training or experience in the area of
interpersonal communication with speakers of English as a lingua franca, and native speakers are

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 27

perceived as being “unaware.” Concerning the trustworthiness cue of benevolence, the
monolingual non-initiated native English speakers may not be able to empathize with the other
party as they lack the experience of appreciating the predicament of speaking a foreign tongue and
they show no emotional solidarity. The use of the expression “isolated from us” shows they are
perceived as being outside the ELF community and of not sharing the common language that is
being built up in the team or network. Consequently, they are considered less trustworthy.

Speaking languages other than English
Concerning the role of other languages, one German executive explained that personal relationships
with the French team members can be built up more quickly if you speak each others? language as
well as English: “I recognise due to my knowledge of French there are different ways of
understanding; if I didn?t speak French I would have had many more problems.” He explained that
personal relationships are formed more quickly with the other party?s language, French, and that he
could form “working friendships:”

If a normal neutral relationship....I would see the problem Monday morning but if there?s a
friendship he will phone me this evening already to prepare that there will be a problem next
morning. We try to exchange a lot of people to create a network; for months, a year or few
years. Exchange programs to send people to other sites, to create personal relationships.

Another German regretted he did not speak French as well as speaking English, saying that
“English is not enough in Europe, with our global companies it?s more likely we?ll work with
foreign colleagues.”

The following two quotes from the survey data convey a similar message:

Not only “broken English” but other foreign languages are very important, i.e. in France and
Italy you can't be successful with English only. My contacts in South European countries are
successful because I speak other languages then English and German. I am able to hear
messages “between the lines.”

And “Speak a little in the other's native language. Learn multi-cultural skills - habits, culture and
language.”

Our data show that it is an advantage for team members if they speak the language of the people
they are working with, even if English is the language of communication and the language of a
“normal neutral relationship.” The term neutral was used by the interviewees, for example, when
the English language was referred to as “a neutral basis” as one person put it. However, “it is
always good to try and talk in the other language if there is the possibility....it is helpful to give the
sign.” This comment shows a receptive attitude and mutual adaptation, hence benevolence.

In our data, the point was often repeated that the professionals that work in the same team, company
or network all share the same transnational, technical, or corporate culture, and this facilitates
working together when they are focused on the job. However, for building relationships and
communicating outside the job, this technical competence and the English language alone are not
sufficient. For socialization, it helps if they speak the language of their partners at least to some
extent, French or German for example, as is shown in the following:

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 28

The technical language is better known in English by everybody even if he is Italian,
Spanish, German. Out of the job we try and speak French which is a pleasure for the
German colleagues. There are some discussions in French out of the job, when it is a
technical aspect we discuss again in English.

In conclusion, technical competence alone, be it in the domain of language and/or in the field of
professional expertise of an individual, is an insufficient basis on which to build trust. The above
extracts from our data again illustrate the ability, benevolence, and integrity, which are the
necessary conditions for establishing trust.

Discussion and Implications
The propensity of an individual to trust can be attributed to many factors, such as features of
personality or national culture. Some individuals are more trusting than others due to their
psychological characteristics and personal background. Also the propensity to trust differs from one
cultural environment to another due to differences in institutional, religious and social traditions.
Countries have been classified into high and low trust in the cross-cultural literature (Hofstede,
1980; Triandis, 1995). In addition, trust is built in different ways in different cultures, for example
through demonstrating technical knowledge for the Germans, or through being friendly and
informal for citizens of the United States (Schneider & Barsoux, 1997, p. 196). However, knowing
these facts does not necessarily mean that an individual will perform successfully in interpersonal
interactions in multilingual contexts.

The analysis of our empirical data points to the importance of the language factor in socialization
processes, which lead to the creation of trust. The examples of practices and strategies contributing
to trust building can be interpreted with reference to the trustworthiness cues presented above.
Through their replies, the informants show that they are well aware of the requirements they need to
meet in global professional communication; they have the ability to manage interpersonal
communication in a multilingual setting; the benevolence to be open to diversity in language use
and to show emotional solidarity; and the integrity to accept the principles inherent in ELF
communication. This could be summed up by saying they have understood and accepted the rules of
the game of working in ELF as a common language.

As this article suggests, whether or not a given individual has a propensity to trust, people who have
gained awareness through experience in multilingual settings seem to be more prone to trust others
and to be trusted. This suggests that ELF speakers are at an advantage as, by definition, they speak
at least two natural languages (their mother tongue and English), whereas native speakers who are
monolingual, and who have no experiential or intellectual exposure to other languages than their
own, may be at a disadvantage in the international business arena of today.

The positive impact of foreign language ability on cross-cultural behaviour has also been explored
by Neyer and Harzing (2008, p. 332):

Our research has shed light on the still understudied role of language in cross-cultural
behaviour….One could hypothesize that people who are fluent in more than one language
are able to adapt more easily to differences in cultural behaviour than monolinguals are.

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 29

Their increased language ability allows them greater scope to fully experience cultural
differences through closer interaction with people speaking these languages.

The same researchers (p. 332) go on to suggest that this has implications for the design of cross-
cultural training, which tends not to include a language component and that “HR practitioners may
want to design integrated language-culture training, to make use of the positive relationship
between language fluency and cross cultural experience.”

Linking the above remarks with trust development, we propose that a focus on language as
manifested in concrete speech events between individuals in interaction is a more productive
approach for learning to build trust than much cross-cultural training, which tends to focus on
abstract differences between different national cultures. Nickerson, likewise, has recommended a
shift in focus in ESBP (English for specific business purposes) research, to an increasing concern
with language strategy, which she defines as “a concern with identifying those strategies that can be
associated with effective communication in business, regardless of whether the speaker/writer is a
native or non-native speaker” (Nickerson, 2005, p.2).

This article argues that it is crucial for individuals to develop awareness of the language and
communication practices that help to foster trusting relations. This has implications for training and
executive development programmes and reinforces claims that the pragmatic communication
aspects of language use should be emphasized (Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005, p. 419; Charles &
Marschan-Piekkari, 2002). Consequently, communicators “should be encouraged to be aware of
their own and of their co-workers? discourse practices, conventions and cultural preferences” and
they should “learn to appreciate a range of communication cultures” (Louhiala-Salminen et al.,
2005, p. 421).

However, in their study of trust in cross-cultural business relationships, Möllering and Stache
(2007, p. 36) have shown that it is not enough to become more aware of cultural differences, trust
and performance. They conclude it is necessary to be more creative in responding to the apparent
barriers and dilemmas encountered, which they explain in the following way: “this involves a
genuine interest in understanding the other, questioning one?s own assumptions and searching for
common aims and rules for initial interactions that produce positive mutual experience from which
a trustful relationship can grow.”

One conclusion to be drawn from this discussion is that ways of establishing trust through language
practices should be included as an additional dimension in training programmes. There exists
however an important caveat. Möllering, quoting Ukrainian experts, reports that “active trust
development loses its functionality when it is openly called that. As soon as the business partner feels
that regular meetings are arranged just to build up trust in order to get a better deal, this can have
counterproductive effects” (2007, p. 34). Therefore, in line with the argument put forward in this
article, developing practices and strategies for building trust could be an important by-product of
language and communication training aiming at what could be called global communicative
competence.

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 30

References

Charles, M.L. (2007). Language matters in global communication. Journal of Business
Communication, 44(3), 260-282.

Charles, M.L. & Marschan Piekkari, R. (2002). Language training for enhanced horizontal
communication: A challenge for MNCs. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 9-29.

DiStefano, J.J. & Maznevski, M.L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global
management. Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45-61.

Earley, P.C., & Gibson, C.B. (2002). Multinational work teams. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Feely, A.J., & Harzing, A-W. (2003). Language management in multinational companies. Cross-
cultural Management, 10(2), 37 - 52.

Firth, A. (1990). „Lingua Franca? negotiations: Towards an interactional approach. World
Englishes: Journal of English as an International and Intranational Language, 9(3),
269-281.

Goodall, K., & Roberts, J. (2003). Only connect: teamwork in the multinational,
Journal of World Business, 38, 127-140.

Griffith, D.A. (2002). The role of communication competencies in international business
relationship development. Journal of World Business, 37, 256-265.

Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6, 467-477. Also in Cruz-Ferreira, M.
(Ed.). Multilingual Norms (pp. 19-31). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010.
Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J.J. (2003). Interactional sociolinguistics: A personal perspective. In D. Schiffrin, D.
Tannen, & H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 215-228).
Blackwell Publishing, paperback edition.

Henttonen, K. & Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: the evolution of
trust through technology-mediated relational communication, Strategic Change, 14, 107-
119.

Hofstede,G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Holden, N.J. (2002). Cross-cultural management: A knowledge management perspective. London:
Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 31

Iles, P., & Hayers P.K. (1997). Managing diversity in transnational project teams. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 12(2), 95-117. MCB University Press.

Kalla, H.K. (2006). Integrated internal communication: A multidisciplinary perspective. Corporate
Communications, 10(4), 302-314.

Kankaanranta, A. (2006). “Hej Seppo, could you please comment on this!”–Internal email
communication in Lingua Franca in a multinational company. Business Communication
Quarterly, 69(2), 216–225. Full report available athttp://ebooks.jyu.fi/solki/9513923207.pdf.

Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2010). “English?–Oh, it?s just work!”: A study of
BELF users? perceptions. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 204-209.

Kassis Henderson, J. (2005). Language diversity in international management teams.
International Studies of Management and Organisation, 35(1), 66-82.

Kassis Henderson, J. (2010). The implications of language boundaries on the development of trust
in international management teams. In M. Saunders, & et al (Eds.), Organizational trust: A
cultural perspective (pp. 358-382). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Companions to
Management.

Knapp, K. (2002). The fading out of the non-native speaker. Native speaker dominance in lingua-
franca-situations. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua Franca Communication
(pp. 217-244). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Lagerstrom, K. & Andersson, M. (2003). Creating and sharing knowledge within a transnational
team–the development of a global business system. Journal of World Business, 38, 84- 95.

Larkey, L.K. (1996). Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse
workgroups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 463-491.

Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2002). Communication and language use in merged corporations: Cases
Stora Enso and Nordea. HSE Working Papers W-330. Helsinki: Helsinki School of
Economics.

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, 401-
421.

Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Charles, M. (2006). English as the Lingua Franca of international
business communication: Whose English? What English. In J.C. Palmer-Silveira, M.F.,
Ruiz-Garrido & I. Fortanet-Gomez (Eds.), Intercultural and International Business
Communication (pp. 27-54). Bern: Peter Lang.

Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Kankaanranta, A. (2011). Professional communication in a global
business context: The notion of global communicative competence. IEEE Transactions on

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 32

Professional Communication, 54, 244-262.

Marschan, R., Welch, D. & Welch, L. (1997). Language: The forgotten factor in
multinational management. European Management Journal, 15(5), 591-98.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organisational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3) 709-734.

Maznevski, M.L., & Chudoba, K.M. (2000) Bridging space over time: Global virtual
dynamics and effectiveness, Organization Science, 11(5), 473-492.

Meierkord, C. (2002) „Language stripped bare? or „linguistic masala?? Culture in lingua franca
communication. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua franca communication (pp.
109-133 ). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Möllering, G., & Stache F. (2007). German-Ukrainian business relationships: Trust development in
the face of institutional uncertainty and cultural differences. MPIfG (Max-Planck-Institut für
Gesellschaftsforschung). Discussion Paper 07/11. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp07-11.pdf).

Neyer, A.K., & Harzing, A.W. (2008). The impact of culture on interactions: Five lessons
learned from the European Commission. European Management Journal (EMJ), 26(5),
325-334.

Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English
for specific purposes, 24(4), 367-380.

Pan,Y., Wong Scollon, S. & Scollon, R. (2002). Professional communication in international
settings. Oxford: Blackwell.

Planken, B. (2005). Managing rapport in lingua franca sales negotiations: A comparison of
professional and aspiring negotiators. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 381-400.

Poncini, G, (2003). Multicultural business meetings and the role of languages other than English.
Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(1), 17-32.

Poncini, G . (2004). Discursive strategies in multicultural business meetings. Peter Lang,
Frankfurt.

Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Using English for international business: A European case study.
English for Specific Purposes, 26, 103-120.

Rogerson-Revell, P., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2010). Introduction to the special issue on
Language Matters, Part 2, Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 375-379.

Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-
discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.

Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen: Does language affect trust in global professional contexts?
Perceptions of international business professionals

Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization
December, 2011, Volume 2, Number 1, 15-33. 33

Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Oxford,
Blackwell.

Schneider, S.C. & Barsoux, J-L. (1997). Managing across cultures. Prentice Hall, Europe.

Schweiger, D.M., Atamer T., & Calori, R. (2003). Transnational project teams and networks:
Making the multinational organization more effective. Journal of World Business, 38, 127-
140.

Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a
Lingua Franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133-158.

Smit, U. (2003). English as Lingua Franca (ELF) as medium of learning in a hotel management
educational program: An applied linguistic approach. Vienna English Working Papers,
12(2), 40-75.

Thomas, G.F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J.L. (2009). The central role of communication in developing
trust and its effect on employee involvement. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 287-
310.

Triandis, H.C. (1995) Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Vollstedt, M. (2002). English as a language for internal company communications. In (Eds.) K.
Knapp & C. Meierkord, Lingua franca communication (pp. 87-108). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Wilson, J.M., Straus, S.G., & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in
computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
processes 99(1), 16-33.

doc_981008290.pdf