INTRODUCTION

“It’s not because it’s unpleasant to listen, it’s because they just go: ‘I cannot hear that, I cannot listen to it, I cannot understand it,’” (Ferguson, 2016). These are the words of Scottish actor James McAvoy talking about how the “foreign” sound of the Scottish accent turns people off, resulting in few films based in Scotland. Unfortunately, this is not only true with the Scottish accent, but with many non-native or non-standard accents, and is increasingly so with the number of English speakers growing around the world, each of whom presumably speaks the language with a non-standard accent. In this paper I define accent as the perception of speech different from the local variety in accordance with Derwing and Munro (2008) and in conjunction with the concept of standard versus non-standard speech.

However, accent does not necessarily imply that the speaker is unintelligible; in fact, “Having an accent is not a sign of overall low proficiency. People who are indistinguishable in other ways from native speakers (e.g. grammar, vocabulary, and idiom) can still have accented speech” (Tracey M. Derwing & Munro, 2008, p. 478). Studies have shown that native speakers are incredibly sensitive to the slightest foreign accent (Flege, 1984; Major, 2007; Scovel, 1988), likely due to the vocal tracts used by different languages (Esling & Wong, 1983) in speech production. This sensitivity increases the likelihood for negative evaluation of foreign accents, which can have dramatic effects on the functioning of teams within a multinational corporation; however, the research in this area is limited and offers incomplete solutions for improving the dynamic that results from biases based on foreign accent within a group of English native speakers (NSs) and non-native speakers (NNSs).

English is projected to be spoken by two billion people around the world by the year 2020 (Clark, 2012), much of which is owing to the internationalization of business where English remains the dominant lingua franca. Nickerson (2005) points out that English is an important part of the multinational businessperson’s daily communication. Especially in multinational teams, or Transnational Partnership Teams & Networks (TPTN) (Schweiger, Atamer, & Calori, 2003), made up of employees from many different nationalities and native languages, non-standard speech and the way it is received by the members of the team is significant. Problems and miscommunications often ensue, particularly among monolingual native English speakers. In the United States only 18% of Americans speak another language (Education, 2010), which results in a lack of empathy for the non-native English speakers regarding the difficulty of expressing oneself in another language. This lack of empathy and combination with negative implicit biases and stereotypes can lead to the out-grouping of NNSs within TPTNs and therefore limits the creativity and effectiveness of the team.

In this paper I aim to provide a solution in the form of linguistic intelligence (LQ) that reduces the implicit biases and improves the evaluations that NSs make regarding their NNS counterparts. This in turn allows trust to be established, forming a social community, which fosters the creativity of the group, resulting in innovative products and solutions for which the team was designed.

First I review the role of TPTNS as a valuable resource to the MNC, while explaining the conflicts that arise based on language issues. Next, I review literature related to language and accent bias, and identify a gap in the literature regarding a resolution of the problem of unfair negative evaluations and biases of NNSs. Then to explain the formation of negative attitudes, I introduce a concept of L2 “noises” based on communication theory, examine sociolinguistic research on attitude formation, and review the social identity theory as it applies to the NS-NNS dynamic. Next, I discuss the implications of these biases on trust and social community formation, two elements necessary for knowledge transfer and innovation (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Birkinshaw, Bresman, & Nobel, 2010; Bresman, Birkinshaw, & Nobel, 2010). Then I introduce the concept of LQ, aimed at normalizing non-standard English through a cognitive and motivational approach utilizing the logic of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). I focus on linguistics and implicit biases in the cognitive dimension, and empathy, self-relevance, and self-efficacy in the motivational dimension. I define LQ and its boundaries and offer insights to its practical application in TPTNs.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Transnational Project Teams and Networks (TPTNs)The last twenty years have seen a shift in the international management field to an increased

focus on the subsidiary-HQ relationship and the creation and transfer of knowledge (Kostova, Marano, & Tallman, 2016). A key item in both of these areas is that of lateral cooperation, such as in TPTNs (Schweiger et al., 2003). Although TPTNs may be categorized by several different names, the concept remains the same. Research by Hedlund and Ridderstrale (1995) and Ridderstrale (1997) (as listed in Schweiger et al., 2003, p. 128) describes five key elements to define TPTNs: (1) Involved in creative tasks, (2) functionally heterogeneous, (3) nationally heterogeneous, (4) geographically dispersed, and (5) their formation is either improvised or stimulated through a top-down “business planning” process. As such, the diversity within these teams can lead to strategically important innovations as well as conflict due to language or cultural issues.

As extant research shows, diversity in teams facilitates creativity and innovation, a key purpose for the formation of the TPTN (Bassett‐Jones, 2005; Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; Iles & Kaur Hayers, 1997; Schweiger et al., 2003). Often, TPTNs composed of representatives from many distinct subsidiaries are created for product or process innovation, particularly as it relates to the different subsidiary locations and national cultures. If the transfer of unique knowledge based on their national, cultural, and technical diversity leads to novel ideas, the TPTN brings competitive advantage to the corporation along with the transfer of new knowledge back to the respective subsidiaries through the team members (Subramaniam & Venkatraman, 2001).

However, TPTNs face distinct challenges apart from the typical difficulties that arise in group work. “… physical distance, cultural diversity, language barriers, and technological infrastructure differences. Moreover, the members are unlikely to know each other, or even met prior to the project and are likely to have different work, communication and decision-making norms,” (Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006, p. 192). These barriers must be overcome through the leadership of the project manager and the other team members to create an environment for the successful innovation of new products or ideas. Because of their knowledge creation and transfer capabilities, TPTNs represent an extremely valuable resource for the multinational corporation as long as the potential conflicts, some of which stem from diverse native languages, can be overcome. Non-Native Speech: An Area of Critical Importance

The literature on the role of language in international business is limited, and is often ignored or grouped together with culture (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Jane Kassis Henderson, 2005; Maclean, 2006; Marschan, Welch, & Welch, 1997; Poncini, 2007). Others focus on the role of a corporate language (Maclean, 2006; Nickerson, 2005; Seidlhofer, 2004), the influence of English throughout the world (Akar, 2002; Bilbow, 2002; Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002), or language as a source of power (Méndez García & Pérez Cañado, 2005; Tokumoto & Shibata, 2011). Kassis Henderson has written extensively on the role that language plays in forming trust (Jane Kassis Henderson, 2010; Jane Kassis Henderson & Louhiala-Salminen, 2011) and the need for sociolinguistic competence when interacting with NNSs in international management teams (2005). Language has also been documented to constitute a significant issue that transnational teams struggle to overcome (Lagerström & Andersson, 2003; Maclean, 2006; Poncini, 2007; Schweiger et al., 2003).

Additionally, empirical studies in international business and discourse analysis reveal the negative evaluations and biases that exist as a response to non-standard speech. Śliwa and Johansson (2014) recently found that not only do listeners negatively evaluate non-standard accents, but the speakers also make negative evaluations of themselves and use strategies for avoiding uncomfortable language-related situations. This often diminishes their evaluation even more. The negative attitudes towards different groups of NNSs appears through research such as de la Zerda and Hopper’s (1979) examination of employment interviewers' reactions to Mexican-American speech, and Ryan, Carranza, and Moffie

2

(1977), Ryan and Sebastian (1980), and Weyant’s (2007) findings of biases towards American English accents over Mexican-English accents. Gill noticed the negative attitudes towards Malaysians (1994), Cargile with Chinese (1997), Mulac, Hanley, and Prigge with Italians, Norwegians, and Eastern Europeans (1974), Hosoda, Stone-Romeko, and Walter (2007) with Asian accents, Ryan and Bulik (1982) with Germans, and Frumkin (2007) with Lebanese and Germans. Even among English speakers around the world, the American spoken English is typically favored over British English (Bayard & Green, 2005; Fuertes, Gottdiener, Martin, Gilbert, & Giles, 2012).

Additionally, the listener may discount the message of the speaker (Ryan & Bulik, 1982) or the listener will be inclined to dislike the speaker (Brennan & Brennan, 1981a, 1981b; Howard Giles, 1970; Triandis, Loh, & Levin, 1966) due to the presence of a non-standard accent. Merely the expectation of an accent based on perceived foreignness has also been shown to lead to negative comprehension, even in a situation where the speaker did not have an accent (Rubin, 1992; Rubin & Smith, 1990).

One can easily see that the existence of foreign accent bias, and subsequent loss of power is indisputable (Clegg, Courpasson, & Phillips, 2006; Méndez García & Pérez Cañado, 2005); however, to the best of my knowledge, extant literature does not offer a means for correcting these issues. In order to understand what is necessary to resist the bias, we first must understand the factors that produce it. For that I look to research in the fields of communication theory, discourse analysis, and social psychology.

Attitude FormationL2 Factors: “You don’t speak like I do.” At the center of all communication is the idea of

“senders” and “receivers” encoding and decoding messages through their own knowledge and personal experience. As the message is sent to the receiver, various “noises” distract from the message. These noises may be physical, such as an environmental distraction; physiological, such as butterflies in the stomach or a pounding heart; psychological, such as predetermined stereotypes or assumptions; or semantic, relating to strange word choice (Shannon & Weaver, 1964). I also argue that accent, pronunciation, and other linguistic factors contribute to the “noise” that a NS hears from a NNS and influences her evaluation. Therefore, I will refer to the aggregation of all L2 (second language learner) noises as “L2” noises, which contribute to the negative evaluations and biases of NNSs.1

Aesthetic differentiation studies by Giles and others in the 1970’s contributed to the first literature on accent attitudes. Two possible explanations include the inherent value hypothesis and the imposed norm hypothesis (H Giles, Bourhis, & Davies, 1975). The former is the idea that accent or dialect represents a certain level of prestige due to its being the most inherently aesthetically pleasing, or more correct, form of the language. The latter suggests that a certain accent is preferable due to cultural norms. In other words, the social group’s status or other non-linguistic factors, such as stereotypes, will determine the prestige of the accent. Trudgill and Giles (1976) later added the social connotations hypothesis, in which the attitude regarding accent is formed by connotations that the listener makes from personal experience. More recently, the intelligibility hypothesis from Giles and Niedzielski (1998) asserts that languages themselves are not inherently beautiful, but rather their perceptions are influenced by a variety of matters such as history, culture, and affect.

It is the social connotations of the speakers of a language variety—whether they are associated with poverty, crime, and being uneducated on one hand, or cultured, wealthy, and having political muscle on the other—that dictates our aesthetic (and other) judgments about language variety. (Howard Giles & Niedzielski, 1998, p. 89)

Various studies support this hypothesis (Boets & De Schutter, 1977; Delsing & Åkesson, 2005; Deprez & De Schutter, 1980; Dewaele, 2010; Schüppert, Hilton, & Gooskens, 2015; Van Bezooijen, 2002). On the 1 Also important to note is that other noises, such as the physiological rapid heartbeat, may heighten or contribute to the creation of L2 noises.

3

other hand, Wolff (1959) contends that the listener’s attitude towards that particular language variety influences the effort that he is willing to put forth in decoding the message. Several studies also support this idea (Tracey M. Derwing & Munro, 2008; Geok, 1997; Johnstone, 1989). Rather than not being able to understand the speaker, as Giles and Niedzielski hypothesize, Wolff maintains that the effort put forth is the critical factor for attitude development.

Evaluation criteria. Regardless of what prompted the attitude, studies show that non-standard accents are typically associated with lower socio-economic status, (Howard Giles & Billings, 2004) and are considered less pleasant to listen to (Bayard & Green, 2005; Aaron C Cargile, Giles, Ryan, & Bradac, 1994; J. Edwards, 1999; Lippi-Green, 1997). Giles and Billings (2004) show that listeners evaluate speakers according to three dimensions: status, solidarity, and dynamism. Status represents the relative success and social class of a person, solidarity is the similarity or attractiveness to the listener, and dynamism is the energy or enthusiasm projected by the speaker. Śliwa and Johansson (2014) note that “non-standard speakers tend to be perceived as less competent (Boyd, 2003), less intelligent (Lindemann, 2005) and less loyal (J. R. Edwards, 1982) than standard speakers, and as speaking the language poorly (Hosoda et al., 2007)” (Śliwa & Johansson, 2014, p. 1138). Additionally, the tactics used by NNSs to avoid situations where they may be negatively perceived further contributes to the negative evaluation.

Derwing and Munro’s (2008) research shows that comprehensibility, defined as the listener’s perception of difficulty in understanding the speaker and the amount of effort needed to process the speaker’s message, differs from intelligibility, which is the amount of the message that was actually understood. Even speakers perceived to have a heavy accent can be completely intelligible; however, Derwing and Munro explain, “Some listeners will fail to understand even the clearest L2 speaker, simply because they have made up their minds that they can’t understand accented speech,” (Tracey M. Derwing & Munro, 2008, p. 486). This suggests that whether or not the message is properly received depends on the effort put forth by the listener. Research by Goek and Johnstone also found this to be the case (Geok, 1997; Johnstone, 1989).

Divisions and subgroups: You are not like me. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, 2004) contends that one’s self-image is based on membership to certain groups which improves self-esteem. For example, social class, gender, age, family, sports teams, etc.… are all different groups for which one might feel a sense of membership and pride in belonging. Because we feel that membership to the group determines part of our identity, we try to enhance the perception of the group as much as possible (e.g. “girls rule, boys drool”); however, in doing so, we create “in-groups” and “out-groups” in which the in-groups discriminate against the out-groups in order to enhance their self-image (McLeod, 2008). Stereotyping and prejudices can also result from this “us vs. them” mentality by exaggerating similarities and differences between groups.

Further divisions may be due to monolingual NSs who cannot empathize with accented NNSs due to their lack of experience speaking another language. They do not know the difficulty that comes with expressing oneself in another language, including the anxiety that many feel, particularly in formal situations (Gudykunst, 1995). Glaister, Husan, and Buckley noted in their evaluation of language in managing international joint ventures,

In all of the IJVs in the sample, the English language was used between the partners. However, some European respondents noted that even though English was the agreed medium, they were at times irritated by the UK partner’s failure to appreciate that they were communicating with those for whom English was not the mother tongue. This, in turn, led to operational tensions. (Glaister, Husan, & Buckley, 2003, p. 19)

These are tensions that may not be obvious to the monolingual NS; however, can obviously compound other team-related issues, including forming language-based divisions within the group.

4

In a team environment such as the TPTN, there is an increased risk of in-groups and out-groups based on native language or culture. Research shows that globally distributed teams have the tendency to form subgroups, reflecting the “us versus them” mentality (Cramton & Hinds, 2004; Hinds, Neeley, & Cramton, 2014; Metiu, 2006; Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006). As research suggests, language promotes social identity and categorization (Howard Giles & Johnson, 1981; Harzing & Feely, 2008), which enhances these social divisions within multicultural and multilingual teams.

These group divisions can further exacerbate the negative evaluations and slow down the progress of the team, as Hinds et al demonstrate in their analysis of language as a “lightning rod” in subgroup dynamics (2014). “Subgroup identification and language asymmetries fueled one another in a reinforcing process in which language was a visible marker that kept subgroup dynamics alive, while divisive subgroup dynamics exacerbated the emotionally charged experience of language asymmetries” (Hinds et al., 2014, p. 554). Their evidence shows that language serves as a source of team division into subgroups, and because language is a constant, day-to-day activity it aggravates the negative interaction of the team.The Impact of Negative Evaluations and Biases on the TPTN

Knowledge, trust, and social community. Essential to the creative process within the TPTN is the effective transfer of tacit knowledge (Kogut & Zander, 1993; Subramaniam & Venkatraman, 2001) through the formation of a social community (Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006; Birkinshaw et al., 2010; Bresman et al., 2010; Kogut & Zander, 1993; Lagerström & Andersson, 2003). Tacit knowledge transfer includes not only the transfer of existing knowledge, but also the creation of new knowledge (Bresman et al., 2010), an essential function of the TPTN. An important part of building this social community is through personal relationships between members (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000; Iles & Kaur Hayers, 1997; Lagerström & Andersson, 2003; Schweiger et al., 2003), which is achieved through trust (Jane Kassis Henderson, 2010). In emphasizing the importance of trust, Feely and Harzing (2003) and Henttonen and Blomqvist (2005) even support the idea of trust bearing financial importance as a corporate asset and through decreased coordination costs, respectively.

Miscommunications or misunderstandings due to L2 factors can influence the trust needed to form a social community. Trustworthiness is a function of ability, benevolence, and integrity (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), meaning that in order to gain someone’s trust one should show that they are able, have sincere intentions, and moral principles. This can often be a problem in intercultural situations. Kassis Henderson writes that “When communicating across languages, mistaken interpretations of the motivations and behavior of an individual commonly occur and false attributions may be made about character or personality” (2010, p. 360). Such false attributions can have a clear detrimental effect on the team’s dynamics where the team member first must establish his competence and prove that he has no ‘egocentric profit motive’ (Mayer et al., 1995). This is especially difficult when the individual may not have the language skills to correct her message, or even realize that her message has been misconstrued. Moreover, the NNS’s overall level of competence is usually judged based on their language skills rather than intellect (Jane Kassis Henderson & Louhiala-Salminen, 2011). Kassis Henderson adds, “Unfamiliar communication patterns or meta-communicative routines used by team members from different language communities influence interpersonal perceptions and attitudes, giving rise to uncertainty and ambiguity and inhibiting the creation of trust,” (2010, p. 362). Therefore, language is intricately intertwined with trust formation and team dynamics. Additionally, the lack of empathy that the monolingual NS has for the NNS further diminishes the trust among team members.

In order to build trust within the team, a community must be established in which there is common ground and common language (Jane Kassis Henderson & Louhiala-Salminen, 2011; Poncini, 2007). For this reason, it is important for the team members to socialize on a personal level to develop their own common language, enabling their minds to be open to different forms of expression (Jane Kassis Henderson, 2010). As reported by Lagerström and Andersson, one multinational team member had this to say regarding communication with team members:

5

[Y]ou must speak decent English; it might sound silly but if you do not you cannot communicate with other team members… 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. (cited in Lagerström & Andersson, 2003, p. 91)

Once individuals can adapt to each other’s way of speaking and communicate effectively without negatively evaluating based on L2 speech, relations will form and trust can be established. This is the basis of the social community which can then work to develop new and existing knowledge for the TPTN.

THEORY DEVELOPMENTLinguistic Intelligence

As Figure 1 articulates, the L2 speech factors influence evaluations and biases of the listener, which directly affects the trust of group members, decreasing the propensity to establish a social community. The following propositions formalize this dynamic:

Proposition 1: L2 factors will increase the formation of subgroups as well as the negative attitude of team members regarding the NNS’s status, solidarity, dynamism, stereotypes, and biases.

Proposition 2: An increase in subgroups will positively affect the negative attitude of team members regarding NNS’s status, solidarity, dynamism, stereotypes, and biases.

Proposition 3: Negative attitudes towards NNSs will negatively affect team trust.Accents are natural products of speaking a language with a different phonetic background that usually requires distinctly different movements of the mouth and utterances from different parts of the mouth and throat. Because of this accents are not easily overcome, and should not have to be overcome if intelligibility is not an issue. As such, emphasis on improvement in this area should not be in adjusting the accent of the NNS, but rather by decreasing the formation of negative evaluations and biases. Figure 2 conceptualizes this relationship. In doing so, I incorporate the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) to demonstrate the nature of attitude change. I also formulate a practical solution to the formation of negative evaluations and biases of NNSs through LQ.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Language issues are often overlooked, yet are at the heart of every interaction that NSs and NNSs

have. Some are more intense than others, but even the most subtle frictions can have serious detrimental effects on the relationship between individuals. The purpose of developing LQ is to become cognitively aware of language differences and motivated to process these differences in a way that will reduce negative evaluations and implicit biases. While the focus of this paper is on LQ as it relates to the TPTN, the nature of the concept allows for application in numerous other areas that involve communication between NSs and NNSs; whether spoken or written, or whether the circumstance is business-related or informal. LQ will need to be higher for face-to-face interactions where the effect of the evaluation can be immediate, as compared to reacting to an email where one has time to process, think, respond, and edit before sending; however, members of a TPTN will communicate both in-person and virtually, highlighting the importance for LQ in all TPTN members.

A foreign accent serves as a constant reminder to the NS that the NNS individual is different, often leading to stereotypes, biases, and negative evaluations based on status, solidarity, and dynamism.

6

However, an accent or other trouble in formulating grammatically correct English does not imply lack of intelligence. Often monolingual NSs take for granted and overlook the knowledge and skills of employees and coworkers who operate in their second language. In fact, bilinguals have been shown to have increased cognitive development over monolinguals (Kovács, 2009; Sampath, 2005); however, while NNSs may be able to communicate effectively in their second language, these skills will likely never be equal to their proficiency and communication levels in their native language (Clahsen & Felser, 2006). MNEs should actively try to engage their NS staff in increasing their LQ levels so as to create a more level playing field among all employees and leverage its most valuable resources, particularly in such diverse and dynamic environments as TPTNs. This is not to say that bilingual employees have more to offer than monolingual employees, but rather that the TPTN may be overlooking members with knowledge and skills that may prove to be extremely valuable.

Training in the form of LQ may have a significant impact on evaluations of NNSs as evidenced in Derwing, Rossiter, and Munro’s study on the effect of accent training paired with cross-cultural training (Tracey M Derwing, Rossiter, & Munro, 2002). In fact, the accent training not only improved NS’s willingness to interact with NNSs, but also improved the confidence level of the NSs in understanding NNSs. Other research (Gas & Varonis 1984 in Tracey M. Derwing & Munro, 2008) also shows that familiarity with accented speech improves comprehension by NS listeners. This serves as important evidence for the application of linguistic training within multicultural and multilingual environments.

LQ focuses not only on the familiarization and linguistic cognition of non-standard speech, as in Derwing, Rossiter, and Munro’s study (2002), but also on a motivational and cognitive recognition of biases not previously found in other literature. Kassis Henderson and Louhiala-Salminen called for language and communication training that facilitates the development of trust in what they termed, “global communicative competence” (2011, p. 29) and Chen, Geluykens, and Choi (2006) also advocate for a language training program. While the need has been observed by these researchers, the method remains incomplete. The application of LQ fills this gap.

The nature of attitude change. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) describes the process of attitude change by persuasive dialogue. The main distinction of this model is the two alternate routes, the central and peripheral routes, which lead to either attitudinal change or retention. The central route is much stronger than the periphery, and depends on the combination of the listener’s motivation and ability to cognitively process the information provided. If the listener is motivated and able, then the cognitive processing will take place, adopting and storing the new cognition, and developing a positive or negative attitude change.

If the listener is not motivated or does not have the ability to cognitively process the information presented, she will defer to the peripheral route in search of a “peripheral cue,” or other source of validation, invalidation, or affective reaction, such as the number of arguments presented, whether or not the speaker is an expert source, or physical aspects of the speaker. If such a cue is present, a peripheral attitude shift takes place. If a cue is not present, the listener will maintain her prior attitude.

Current research in cognitive and social psychology provides strong support for the view that at times people engage in “controlled,” “deep,” “systematic,” and/or “effortful” analyses of stimuli, and at other times the analyses are better characterized as “automatic, ” “shallow, ” “heuristic, ” and/or “mindless”. (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986, p. 128)

The former descriptions refer to the process that takes place in the central route, while the latter refers to the periphery.

While I recognize that the ELM is based on persuasive communication, and that not all NNS communication will be persuasive, the foundation of the model is applicable to the structure of how

7

listeners process the L2 “noises”. I postulate that if a listener is cognitively aware and knowledgeable about the linguistic differences and potential biases between themselves and the NNS, is properly motivated and able to act on these mental capabilities (has high LQ), then his evaluation of the NNS will be more favorable.

On the other hand, the listener may evaluate the NNS based on the peripheral route. For example, with lower proficiency NNSs or those with heavier accents, more L2 noise will be present and the listener’s cognitive ability to scrutinize each “noise” will decrease, leading the listener to form an attitude based on any peripheral cues that may be present. Figure 3 demonstrates the central and peripheral routes with LQ facilitating the individual to remain within the central route towards attitude change.

Because of the nature of the multinational corporation, it is likely that peripheral cues will be related to cultural differences, such as appearances, stereotypes, likeability, etc... If the listener has a high cultural intelligence (CQ) (Ang, 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003), or ability to adjust to different cultures, then the peripheral attitude may be more favorable than for someone with a low CQ. Therefore, CQ facilitates evaluations from the periphery when LQ is low. If the listener has high LQ, he should not need to defer to his CQ and will remain in the central route to evaluate the speech of the NNS.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cognitive strategy. The cognitive strategy should incorporate concrete linguistic differences

between languages and the sociolinguistic implications of language expression (Jane Kassis Henderson, 2005) that can be learned and applied by TPTN members. According to the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, the structure of a language has a significant influence on perception and categorization, including different perceptions of time, status, hierarchy, and appropriate social relationships (Usunier, 1998). Usunier gives the example of the English word “deadline,” which conveys the typical Anglo-American sense of urgency (i.e., the possibility of death) that is not present in the French society or language.2 This serves as an example of the possible misunderstandings that may ensue from communication between a NS and NNS.

Translational differences can be divided into a several categories: lexical, or dictionary definitions; idiomatic, which is non-equivalent in literal terms and is natural to NSs; grammatical, relating to word order and sentence structure; and experiential, which defines the meaning of words and sentences based on the listener’s everyday experience (Usunier, 1998). Any of these differences between languages are easily misused or misinterpreted by a NNS and can cause communication problems.

Besides translational differences, other areas where meaning can be misconstrued based on language differences are: Multiple meanings of a word; frequency of use of certain words; latent value judgments put on words, and in which context; meaning subtleties regarding the context of use of words and experiential aspect; idiomatic expressions; phonology; grammar; and etymology (Usunier, 1998, p. 143). In addition, Usunier adds that rhetoric, silence, conversational style, and body gestures provide important clues to communication in different languages and cultures. Chen et al (2006) also note the importance of phonetics, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and anthropological linguistics. All of these concepts represent the differences in speech sounds, the components of a language and how words are formed, sentence structure, and word choice and context. Any could easily be misunderstood or misused by the listener or the NNS, furthering the negative evaluation and lack of trust in one another. For example, an employee from a Spanish-speaking country once sent an email to all of his co-workers with the salutation, “Hi gays.” Some readers may have found this a humorous error while others may have been offended; however, the employee meant no harm. Upon closer linguistic examination, the Spanish spelling of the English long “I” /aj/ sound is with “ay,” 2 “Échéance” or “délai de rigueur” do not convey the same intensity in their translations in (Usunier, 1998, p. 55).

8

such as in the Spanish word “Mayan” /mah-yuh n/. The employee meant to write, “Hi guys,” but used the Spanish spelling rather than English out of lack of familiarity with the language. In a similar way, NNSs from an Eastern-European background often pronounce the “w” sound as a “v”. Those with higher LQ would realize the error due to linguistics and move on; however, a low LQ reader may develop negative evaluations of this individual regarding their competence or social status.

Proposition 4: Increased cognitive awareness of linguistic differences will negatively affect formation of subgroups and the negative attitudes towards NNSs.

Hence, multicultural team members should understand where these differences lie and be able to attribute misunderstandings or miscommunications to these areas, rather than attribute them to the low intelligence of the NNS. As previously noted, this method was proven successful in Derwing et al’s (2002) study.

Mechanisms to reduce implicit biases are divided into categories based on the desired outcome, such as retraining the underlying assumptions, shifting the context of evaluation, and controlling the activation or application of associations (Gawronski & Sritharan, 2010 in Lai, Hoffman, & Nosek, 2013).

The first category involves techniques like evaluative conditioning, intergroup contact, and persuasion. Evaluative conditioning retrains one’s attitudes by linking concepts with different attributes. Someone who holds a negative bias may be presented with positive images or words paired with images of the negatively viewed concept, and the negative images or words paired with images of positively viewed concepts. Similarly, one could say “yes” when presented with counter-stereotypical information, associating the previously negatively-viewed concept with a positive evaluation. This could be applied to stereotypical accents or nationalities in the TPTN. Intergroup contact is important for reducing both implicit and explicit prejudice (Allport, 1979; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). This method shows that exposure to members of the out-group can effect implicit prejudice. Explicit prejudice; however, can be decreased by the quality of the intergroup interaction. This will be extremely important in the early days of TPTN formation, as well as subsequent meetings, when group members interact with others who are different from themselves. According to Briñol Turnes, Petty, and McCaslin (2009), persuasion in the form of high cognitive elaboration can lead to decreased implicit biases. In referencing this work, Lai writes,

Degree of cognitive elaboration may influence implicit attitudes through deliberative reasoning, whereby newly-gained knowledge leads to the activation of positive associations with attitude objects. Further, persuasion cues such as personal relevance, source expertise, and source trustworthiness can influence the impact of persuasive messages on implicit attitudes. (Lai et al., 2013, p. 317)

This directly relates to and provides evidence for the ELM and the need for cognitive effort in attitudinal change.

Also relevant for reducing implicit biases is activating counter-stereotypical associations and by considering positive events or people associated with the out-group while also considering negative people or events with the in-group can produce results in this area. For example, Gandhi, who is typically viewed positively, helps to associate the Indian accent with positivity, while Al Capone may negatively associate an American English (New York) accent.

Lastly, implicit biases can be affected by goals, motivations, and behavioral strategies. Interpersonal motives can cause implicit bias to reduce, at least temporarily, while a goal is achieved, such as teamwork or other necessary interaction. This will be particularly important in the functioning of members of the TPTN who must cooperate and collaborate regardless of their opinions of the others. Lastly, making plans for how to react in certain situations can link the motivation to a behavioral response, which can increase the automaticity of the behavior if done consistently.

Awareness of the potential for bias and the above cognitive strategies to overcome them, coupled with a familiarization of linguistic differences will improve the cognitive level of TPTN team members, allowing for greater chances of remaining in the central route of the ELM for attitude formation.

Proposition 5: Increased cognitive awareness of social biases and ways to reduce them will

9

negatively affect formation of subgroups and the negative attitudes towards NNSs. Motivational strategy. As explained in the ELM, cognition alone will not affect attitude change,

but rather the individual must also have the motivation to change her attitude. Motivation can come from several areas including being able to empathize with or take the perspective of the other person, the self-relevance of the information, and their concept of self-efficacy.

First empathy and perspective-taking relate to the communication between NSs and NNSs because when an individual can imagine herself “in the shoes of another,” she feels a greater sense of motivation to listen without judging the way the message is expressed. For this reason many monolingual NSs do not have the motivation to alter their evaluations or biases because they cannot imagine themselves in a situation in which they are communicating in a non-native language. Empathy comes from previous experience; however, demands from busy schedules and lifestyles do not afford most TPTN team members the luxury to learn a new language in order to develop empathy.

In his study on perspective-taking, Weyant (2007) shows with strong evidence that merely taking the perspective of a NNS by writing about them in the first person decreased negative evaluations and stereotyping related to ability and accomplishment. This shows that when one imagines herself in the position of the other, she is more likely to have positive evaluations of that person. This exercise in developing a different perspective may also aid in blurring the dividing lines between in-groups and out-groups. In the context of the present paper, while it may be difficult to imagine oneself speaking another language without having experience doing so, research demonstrates that people become more motivated when information is self-referent (Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977). Perspective-taking may prove a useful tool for quickly developing these qualities.

Proposition 6: Increased empathy towards NNSs will negatively affect formation of subgroups and the negative attitudes towards NNSs.

Moreover, Ertac (2011) found that individuals process information significantly better when the information is self-relevant. That is to say that an English NS may have a better chance for success in LQ training if the information can be presented in a way in which the individual sees its relevance to his self or in some way contributes to his self-image. This also relates to the self-serving attribution bias (Miller & Ross, 1975). For example, by explaining how LQ will improve personal socio-cultural skills and team success, thereby opening more future opportunities for the individual, the NS may be more inclined to process the information presented in a deeper way and put forth more effort to listening unbiasedly to NNSs. Even the way the instructor offers feedback to the NS in the training can serve as self-relevant motivating information to facilitate the increase of the NS LQ.

Proposition 7: Increased self-relevance of LQ will negatively affect formation of subgroups and the negative attitudes towards NNSs.

Self-efficacy from social cognition is also an important aspect to the motivational dimension of LQ. Psychologist Albert Bandura (1995, p. 2) defines self-efficacy as, “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations.” Self-efficacy significantly affects how individuals approach tasks. Those with high self-efficacy have more confidence to tackle more challenging problems; whereas, those with low self-efficacy avoid challenging situations. If TPTN members have high self-efficacy, they will be more likely to benefit from the LQ training and thereby increase their LQ. They will also be more likely to engage NNSs in conversation and focus on the message of the NNS. An important conclusion from Derwing et al’s (2002) study is that those who received the accent training had greater improvement in confidence in communicating with NNSs. This confidence is equal to their self-efficacy. By augmenting a person’s self-efficacy, their motivation for attitude change will improve. Extant research in cognitive learning has shown that self-efficacy can be improved through mastery experience, social modeling, improving physical and emotional states, and through verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1994). In these areas and others the TPTN project manager will play an integral role. Schweiger, Atamer, and Calori (2003) mention that, among other attributes, team leaders should have open-mindedness for learning. This can be especially valuable for other team members who

10

observe the project manager as a social model in exhibiting high LQ and communicating effectively and unbiasedly with NNSs. The self-efficacy of the team members will improve, allowing for their own improved LQ as well.

Proposition 8: Increased self-efficacy of NSs will negatively affect formation of subgroups and the negative attitudes towards NNSs.

Improved empathy, self-relevance, and self-efficacy all lead to an increased motivation for positive communication which will allow NSs to put forth the effort required to listen effectively to L2 speech. These strategies may also reduce the tendency to form subgroups, thereby augmenting the motivation for team unity.

More importantly, the combination of cognition and motivation should allow the listener to maintain position in the central route of the ELM to assess the speaker and form an attitude while also limiting the formation of subgroups. Formally,

Proposition 9: The combination of increased cognition and motivation will negatively affect formation of subgroups and the negative attitudes towards NNSs.

ImplicationsI have shown through my review of extant literature that a problem exists that has yet to be fixed.

The problem of negative evaluations and biases of NNSs not only affects the speakers themselves, but also can have a significant impact on whether or not the TPTN fulfils the tasks that it set out to do. These multicultural, multinational, and multifunctional teams have the potential for creating competitive advantage through innovation that is influenced by the diversity within the team; however, language tensions including negative biases and evaluations of non-standard speech are detrimental to its success. The concept of LQ, in an effort to improve both cognitive and motivational dimensions of the ELM, has the potential to alleviate this troublesome situation. Because of a lack of empathy and knowledge about the linguistic differences in foreign languages some NSs make negative evaluations of NNSs. Likewise, stereotypes add to the propensity for subgroups and creates biases against NNSs. Together these negative issues do not allow for relationships and trust to develop within the team and a social community cannot form, thereby defeating the purpose of the team.

Following in the path of Derwing et al (2002), I believe that by not only training members in cross-cultural issues, but also in LQ, the TPTN can reduce implicit biases and negative evaluations. Such intelligence is necessary because the empirical evidence provided earlier in this paper shows that regardless of an individual’s intellect and skills, NNSs are consistently evaluated, and evaluate themselves, based on their English language skills and accent. Even those who are by all other means considered fluent in English, are evaluated as NNSs, and are potentially outcast in the “us vs. them” mentality.

This paper contributes to research in the areas of multinational teams, language and culture, and knowledge transfer. A practical implementation of LQ training should concentrate on the linguistic and stereotypical issues with the particular language groups involved, with a narrow and detailed focus in groups with a few languages represented and a broader approach for groups with many diverse languages. LQ has the potential to positively affect, not only teamwork within TPTNs, but also other collaborative environments within the MNE, such as negotiations with foreign partners, international human resources management, and overall improved communication by creating an environment of respect for diversity of expression.

CONCLUSIONThrough the writing of this paper I have examined the extant research on multinational teams and

potential areas of success, such as creativity and innovation, and failure based on conflict. I explored empirical research that provides evidence of negative evaluations and biases of non-standard speech and used sociolinguistic research and the concept of “noises” in communication theory, along with the tendency to develop in-groups and out-groups to explain the factors contributing to these negative

11

evaluations. I developed a model that suggests that the combination of L2 noises and social group factors negatively affect the ability of the team members to develop trust and form social community. Based on this model and the empirical research relating to the success of accent training, I used the framework of the ELM to develop a concept of linguistic intelligence to train team members in the cognitive and motivational dimensions relating to linguistic differences, bias reducing strategies, and empathy, self-relevance, and self-efficacy. This approach accounts for not only the nature of attitude change, but also both factors that foster negative evaluations and biases.

While this paper has important implications, it is not without limitations. Above all, there is a possibility that literature exists that would either support or dispute the findings of this paper. Others may contend that LQ is just an add-on of sorts to CQ. Additionally, some may remain unconvinced of the magnitude of the language issue in multinational teams or the effectiveness of the methods laid out in this paper.

Evidence from previous research documents the need for more attention to language issues and the power imbalances caused by such evaluations; however, to the best of my knowledge, a concrete solution did not exist until now. By improving evaluations and respect of teammates and coworkers, better communication will ensue, nurturing an environment where creativity and innovative ideas based on diverse knowledge and experience will thrive. It is time for the multinational business community to take account of the issues faced by NNSs and improve productivity while doing so.

REFERENCES

Adenfelt, M., & Lagerström, K. (2006). Enabling knowledge creation and sharing in transnational

projects. International journal of project management, 24(3), 191-198.

Akar, D. (2002). The macro contextual factors shaping business discourse: The Turkish case. IRAL,

40(4), 305-322.

Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice (25th Anniversary ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Ang, S., Van Dyne, Linn; Koh, Christine; Ng, K. Yee; Templer, Klaus J.; Tay, Cheryl; Chandrasekar, N.

Anand (2007). Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and

Decision Making, Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance. Management and Organization

Review, 3(3), 335-371.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In. VS Ramachaudran. Encyclopedia of human behavior, 4, 71-81.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies: Cambridge University Press.

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The multinational solution. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard College.

12

Bassett‐Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and

innovation management, 14(2), 169-175.

Bayard, D., & Green, J. A. (2005). Evaluating English Accents Worldwide. Te Reo, 48, 21-28.

Bilbow, G. T. (2002). Commissive speech act use in intercultural business meetings. IRAL, 40(4), 287-

304.

Birkinshaw, J., Bresman, H., & Nobel, R. (2010). Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions: A

retrospective. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(1), 21-26.

Boets, H., & De Schutter, G. (1977). Verstaanbaarheid en appreciatie. Nederlandse dialekten uit België

zoals inwoners van Duffel die ervaren. Taal en Tongval, 29, 156-177.

Boyd, S. (2003). Foreign-born teachers in the multilingual classroom in Sweden: The role of attitudes to

foreign accent. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(3-4), 283-295.

Brennan, E. M., & Brennan, J. S. (1981a). Accent Scaling and Language Attitudes: Reactions to Mexican

American English Speech. Language and Speech, 24(3), 207-221.

Brennan, E. M., & Brennan, J. S. (1981b). Measurements of accent and attitude toward Mexican-

American speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10(5), 487-501.

Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (2010). Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions.

Journal of International Business Studies, 41(1), 5-20.

Briñol Turnes, P., Petty, R. E., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). 10. Changing attitudes on implicit versus

explicit measures: what is the difference? Paper presented at the Attitudes: Insights from the new

implicit measures.

Cargile, A. C. (1997). Attitudes toward Chinese-Accented Speech. Journal of Language and Social

Psychology, 16(4), 434-443.

Cargile, A. C., Giles, H., Ryan, E. B., & Bradac, J. J. (1994). Language attitudes as a social process: A

conceptual model and new directions. Language & Communication, 14(3), 211-236.

13

Charles, M., & Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2002). Language training for enhanced horizontal communication:

A challenge for MNCs. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 9-29.

Chen, S., Geluykens, R., & Choi, C. J. (2006). The importance of language in global teams: A linguistic

perspective. Management International Review, 46(6), 679-696.

Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? Trends in Cognitive

Sciences, 10, 564-570.

Clark, D. (2012). English - The Language of Global Business? Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2012/10/26/english-the-language-of-global-business/

#4b7491e72164

Clegg, S., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. (2006). Power and Organizations Foundations for

Organizational Science,

Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2004). Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams:

Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? Research in organizational behavior, 26, 231-263.

de la Zerda, N., & Hopper, R. (1979). Employment Interviewers' Reactions to Mexican American Speech.

Communication Monographs, 46, 126-134.

Delsing, L.-O., & Åkesson, K. L. (2005). Håller språket ihop Norden?: en forskningsrapport om

ungdomars förståelse av danska, svenska och norska: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Deprez, K., & De Schutter, G. (1980). Honderd Antwerpenaars en honderd Rotterdammers over dertien

Nederlandse taalvariëteiten. Een attitude-onderzoek. Leuvense Bijdragen Louvain, 69(2-3), 167-

256.

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2008). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to

communication. Language Teaching, 42(4), 476-490.

Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., & Munro, M. J. (2002). Teaching native speakers to listen to foreign-

accented speech. Journal Of Multilingual And Multicultural Development, 23(4), 245-259.

14

Dewaele, J.-M. (2010). The perception of French by native speakers and advanced L2, L3 and L4

learners. Language practices and identity construction in French, 133-156.

DiStefano, J. J., & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global management.

Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45-63.

Earley, C. P., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press.

Education, U. S. D. o. (2010). Education and the Language Gap: Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks at the

Foreign Language Summit. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/education-and-

language-gap-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-foreign-language-summit

Edwards, J. (1999). Refining our understanding of language attitudes. Journal of Language and Social

Psychology, 18(1), 101-110.

Edwards, J. R. (1982). Language attitudes and their implications among English speakers. Attitudes

toward language variation, 20-33.

Ertac, S. (2011). Does self-relevance affect information processing? Experimental evidence on the

response to performance and non-performance feedback. Journal of Economic Behavior &

Organization, 80(3), 532-545.

Esling, J. H., & Wong, R. F. (1983). Voice quality settings and the teaching of pronunciation. Tesol

Quarterly, 17(1), 89-95.

Feely, A. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2003). Language Management in Multinational Companies. Cross

Cultural Management: An International Journal, 10(2), 37-52.

Ferguson, B. (2016). James McAvoy: Scots poorly represented because accent ‘foreign’. Retrieved from

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/culture/film/james-mcavoy-scots-poorly-represented-because-

accent-foreign-1-4280773

Flege, J. E. (1984). The detection of French accent by American listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America, 76(3), 692-707.

15

Frumkin, L. (2007). Influences of Accent and Ethnic Background on Perceptions of Eyewitness.

University of Maryland Baltimore County. (07747 610 657)

Fuertes, J. N., Gottdiener, W. H., Martin, H., Gilbert, T. C., & Giles, H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the

effects of speakers’ accents on interpersonal evaluations. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 42, 120-133.

Geok, L. C. (1997). Successful Intercultural Negotiations: A Matter of Attitude. Journal of Language for

International Business, 8(1), 19-31.

Giles, H. (1970). Evaluative Reactions To Accents. Educational Review, 22(3), 211-227.

Giles, H., & Billings, A. C. (2004). Assessing language attitudes: Speaker evaluation studies. The

handbook of applied linguistics, 187.

Giles, H., Bourhis, R., & Davies, A. (1975). Prestige Styles: The Imposed Norm and Inherent Value

Hypothesis'. McCormack and Wurm (eds).

Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. Intergroup Behaviour, ed.

by JC Turner, and H. Giles, 199–243: Oxford: Blackwell.

Giles, H., & Niedzielski, N. (1998). Italian is beautiful, German is ugly: na.

Gill, M. M. (1994). Accent and stereotypes: Their effect on perceptions of teachers and lecture

comprehension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(4), 348-361.

Glaister, K. W., Husan, R., & Buckley, P. J. (2003). Learning to manage international joint ventures.

International Business Review, 12(1), 83-108.

Gudykunst, W. (1995). Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory: Current status. In R. L.

Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 8-58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harzing, A.-W., & Feely, A. J. (2008). The language barrier and its implications for HQ-subsidiary

relationships. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 15(1), 49-61.

Henttonen, K., & Blomqvist, K. (2005). Managing distance in a global virtual team: the evolution of trust

through technology‐mediated relational communication. Strategic Change, 14(2), 107-119.

16

Hinds, P. J., Neeley, T. B., & Cramton, C. D. (2014). Language as a lightning rod: Power contests,

emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams. Journal of International Business

Studies, 45(5), 536-561.

Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic

review of team demography. Journal of management, 33(6), 987-1015.

Hosoda, M., Stone-Romeko, E. F., & Walter, J. N. (2007). Listeners' Cognitive And Affective Reactions

To English Speakers With Standard American English And Asian Accents. Perceptual and

Motor Skills, 104, 307-326.

Iles, P., & Kaur Hayers, P. (1997). Managing diversity in transnational project teams: A tentative model

and case study. Journal of managerial Psychology, 12(2), 95-117.

Johnstone, B. (1989). Linguistic strategies and cultural styles for persuasive discourse. In S. Ting-Toomy

& F. Korzenny (Eds.), Language, Communication, and Culture: Current Directions. Beverly

Hills: Sage.

Kassis Henderson, J. (2005). Language Diversity in International Management Teams. International

Studies of Management & Organization, 35(1), 66-82.

Kassis Henderson, J. (2010). 14 The implications of language boundaries on the development of trust in

international management teams. Organizational trust, 358-382.

Kassis Henderson, J., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2011). Does language affect trust in global professional

contexts? Perceptions of international business professionals. Rhetoric, Professional

Communication, and Globalization, 2(1), 15-33.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational

corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 625-645.

Kostova, T., Marano, V., & Tallman, S. (2016). Headquarters–subsidiary relationships in MNCs: Fifty

years of evolving research. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 176-184.

Kovács, Á. M. M., Jacques (2009). Cognitive gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants. PNAS, 106(16).

17

Lagerström, K., & Andersson, M. (2003). Creating and sharing knowledge within a transnational team—

the development of a global business system. Journal of World Business, 38(2), 84-95.

Lai, C. K., Hoffman, K. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2013). Reducing implicit prejudice. Social and Personality

Psychology Compass, 7(5), 315-330.

Lindemann, S. (2005). Who speaks “broken English”? US undergraduates’ perceptions of non-native

English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 187-212.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United

States: Psychology Press.

Maclean, D. (2006). Beyond English: Transnational corporations and the strategic management of

language in a complex multilingual business environment. Management Decision, 44(10), 1377-

1390.

Major, R. C. (2007). Identifying a foreign accent in an unfamiliar language. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 29(04), 539-556.

Marschan, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1997). Language: The forgotten factor in multinational

management. European Management Journal, 15(5), 591-598.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.

Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.

McLeod, S. (2008). Social Identity Theory. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-

identity-theory.html

Méndez García, M. d. C., & Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2005). Language and power: raising awareness of the

role of language in multicultural teams. Language and intercultural communication, 5(1), 86-104.

Metiu, A. (2006). Owning the code: Status closure in distributed groups. Organization Science, 17(4),

418-435.

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?

Psychological bulletin, 82(2), 213.

18

Mulac, A. H., Theodore D.; Prigge, Diane Y. . (1974). Effects of Phonological Speech Foreignness upon

Three Dimensions of Attitude of Selected American Listeners. The Quarterly Journal of Speech,

411-420.

Nickerson, C. (2005). English as a lingua franca in international business contexts. English for Specific

Purposes, 24, 367-380.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751.

Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.

Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to

geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning.

Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 679-692.

Poncini, G. (2007). Discursive strategies in multicultural business meetings (Vol. 13): Peter Lang.

Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal

information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 677.

Rubin, D. L. (1992). Nonlanguage Factors Affecting Undergraduates' Judgments of Nonnative English-

Speaking Teaching Assistants. Research in Higher Education, 33(4), 511-531.

Rubin, D. L., & Smith, K. A. (1990). Effects of accent, ethnicity, and lecture topic on undergraduates'

perceptions of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 14, 337-353.

Ryan, E. B., & Bulik, C. M. (1982). Evaluations of Middle Class and Lower Class Speakers of Standard

American and German-Accented English. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1(1), 51-

61.

Ryan, E. B., Carranza, M. A., & Moffie, R. W. (1977). Reactions toward varying degrees of accentedness

in the speech of Spanish-English bilinguals. Language and Speech, 20(3), 267-273.

19

Ryan, E. B., & Sebastian, R. J. (1980). The effects of speech style and social class background on social

judgements of speakers. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19(3), 229-233.

Sampath, K. K. (2005). Effect of Bilingualism on Intelligence. In J. e. a. i. M. Cohen, Kara T. (ed. and

introd.); Rolstad, Kellie (ed. and introd.); MacSwan, Jeff (ed., introd., and afterword) (Ed.),

Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (Vol. xxiv, pp. 2048-2056).

Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

Schüppert, A., Hilton, N. H., & Gooskens, C. (2015). Swedish is beautiful, Danish is ugly? Investigating

the link between language attitudes and spoken word recognition. Linguistics, 53(2), 375-403.

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.

Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human speech:

Newbury House Publishers.

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). 10. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual review of

applied linguistics, 24, 209-239.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1964). The Mathematical Model of Communication Urbana. Urbana: The

University Of Illinois Press.

Śliwa, M., & Johansson, M. (2014). How non-native English-speaking staff are evaluated in linguistically

diverse organizations: A sociolinguistic perspective. Journal of International Business Studies,

45, 1133-1151.

Subramaniam, M., & Venkatraman, N. (2001). Determinants of transnational new product development

capability: Testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge.

Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 359-378.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Inter-group Behavior. In S. A. Worchel,

L.W. (Ed.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

20

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J. T. S. Jost, J.

(Ed.), Political Psychology: Key Readings (pp. 276-293). New York: Psychology Press.

Tokumoto, M., & Shibata, M. (2011). Asian varieties of English: Attitudes towards pronunciation. World

Englishes, 30(3), 392-408.

Triandis, H. C., Loh, W. D., & Levin, L. A. (1966). Race, status, quality of spoken English, and opinions

about civil rights as determinants of interpersonal attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 3(4), 468-472.

Trudgill, P., & Giles, H. (1976). Sociolinguistics and Linguistic Value Judgements: Correctness,

Adequacy and Aesthetics:(to Appear in F. Coppieters & D. Goyvaerts (eds.). The Functions of

Language and Literature Studies, Gent: Story-Scientia): Linguistic Agency, University of Trier.

Usunier, J.-C. (1998). International & Cross-Cultural Management Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Van Bezooijen, R. (2002). Aesthetic evaluation of Dutch. Handbook of perceptual dialectology, 2, 13-30.

Weyant, J. M. (2007). Perspective Taking as a Means of Reducing Negative Stereotyping of Individuals

Who Speak English as a Second Language. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(4), 703-

716.

Wolff, H. (1959). Intelligibility and inter-ethnic attitudes. Anthropological linguistics, 34-41.

21

Figure 1.

Relationship of contributing factors to social community formation.

22

Figure 2.

The effect of linguistic intelligence on evaluations and biases.

23

Figure 3.

Attitude change regarding non-native speech in the Elaboration Likelihood Model.

Adapted from the Elaboration Likelihood Model, (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

24