For at least the two most recent decades, academics have been studying the effects of corporate language influence on MNCs (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002; Ehrenreich, 2010; Feely & Harzing, 2004; Lauring & Selmer, 2011). The theoretical analysis of language comprises a range of studies, which includes theories from the fields of management, sociology, economics, and strategy (Terjesen, Hinger, Tenzer, & Harzing, 2014). Terjesen et al. (2014) overviewed the existing theoretical background on language and stated that sociological theories mostly focus on culture (in particular, Bourdieu’s theory holds a significant place), linguistic distance, and homophyly; social identity power and status characteristics; trust issues; and emotion (Terjesen et al., 2014). Terjesen stated that economic theories include the gravity model, transaction costs, new institutional economics, and human capital theory, whereas strategy theories mostly discuss language and knowledge transfer (Terjesen et al., 2014). Social identity and selfcategorization theories are used by language researchers in management to explain why language diversity can separate employees into groups based on a shared language and thus give rise to language boundaries in MNCs (Terjesen et al., 2014). The variety of theories that can be applicable in order to justify language within an organizational context demonstrates the overall importance of the language phenomenon, as it covers a variety of organizational processes in modern companies. A set of papers within both main streams of research have addressed the issue of ‘language standardization’ and its effects on many organizational functions and processes, in particular external and internal communication (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002; Ehrenreich, 2010; Sorensen, 2005), organizational power and control (Vaara, Piekkari, & Santti, 2005), knowledge transfer (Lauring & Selmer, 2011; Makela, Kalla, & Piekkari, 2007; Welch & Welch, 2008; Welch, Welch, & Piekkari, 2005), etc. As for the effects of corporate language on international human resource management (IHRM), fewer papers can be found but these frequently state that language is part of human capital: as human capital theory identifies variables are related to employee success (Newburry & Thakur, 2010). In this sense human capital theory may explain better than other theories how language may be connected with career mobility and thus serve as a framework for our research triangle: namely linking language, career issues and MNCs. Even less attention has been attributed to the various dimensions of the effects of corporate language on career mobility and the development of the workforce, and for the careers of individuals who are at different career stages, positions and organizational levels. These are still widely overlooked by researchers (Jokinen, Jarlstr € om, € & Piekkari, 2011).

The question of what makes a career successful was raised by Gunz and Peiperl (2007), and they mention that demographic factors such as age and gender, and human capital factors such as working experience and education, are among the most investigated factors influencing career development. In this regard, the factor e corporate language skills and how they (or the lack of them) influence career mobility e which is claimed to be the subject of empirical research analyses (Shanahan, 1996) and has appeared to be a significant part of human capital theory (Becker, 1975; Evans, Pucik, & Bjorkman, 2011; Newburry € & Thakur, 2010; Traavik & Richardsen, 2010), however, actually overlooks the linkage between career issues, linguistic competencies and business processes in MNCs.

Career paths have moved away from traditional, linear career progression (Littleton, Arthur, & Rousseau, 2000; Peltonen, 1993) to become more multidirectional and unpredictable (Luo & Shenkar, 2006). They also have become more ‘boundaryless’ meaning that employees move with greater ease within or between organizations, both vertically and horizontally (Briscoe, Hall, & Frautschy DeMuth, 2006). There are several qualitative case studies (see, for example, SanAntonio, 1987; Piekkari, Vaara, Tienari, & S€ antti, 2005; Blazejewski, 2006) which have aimed at investigating how a common corporate language shapes, steers and directs the career paths of individual employees in these companies. The cases analyze mostly MNCs located in or originating from developed countries, such as Germany, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and others. However, they neither generalize a large set of data, nor conceptualize a model for a relationship between corporate language and careers. However, there is one study that proposes a theoretical model for this influence (Jokinen et al., 2011), but which still needs to be tested on various MNCs. Moreover, language issues including the relationship between corporate language and career mobility is literally unrevealed for developing countries, in particular for Russia. Thus, this study aims to research how language skills affect employee career mobility in Russia. We formulated our research questions: first, does corporate language act as both a barrier and as a facilitator for the career mobility of employees in MNCs in Russia?; second, do individuals’ language skills influence their actual and perceived career mobility in MNCs in Russia?