Download Chapter 2 Language management

Chapter 2 Language management
Anne Kari Bjørge, Sunniva Whittaker
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chapter outline
Opening case Statoil and the use of English
English as a lingua franca (ELF)
The implications of choosing English as a corporate language
At the micro or individual level
At the macro or corporate level
Best practices
Internal or social interaction
Written communication
Meetings, negotiations and presentations
Conclusion
Applications
2.1 Activity: Plan a language management strategy
2.2 Case study: “we both speak English”
2.3 Statoil case: discussion questions
2.4 Glossary of key concepts
2.5 Activity: Coordination of a virtual team
1
Statoil and the use of English
Statoil, an international energy company with operations in 34 countries headquartered in
Norway, made a move to reduce costs by increasing the use of the English language with
their biggest Norwegian suppliers. Suppliers were requested to submit invoices in English,
and to use English in contracts. The overall aim was to reduce the costs of maintaining two
parallel languages in Norway. Opinions among suppliers were divided, but the dominant view
was that having to use English in communicating with Statoil would generate extra work,
represent problems for smaller companies that may not have staff with the required English
skills, and present a potential cause of misunderstanding. There were also negative
reactions from the Language Council of Norway. In the end, Statoil withdrew their request.
This case goes to show that even in a country with high proficiency levels in English it is not
uncontroversial to have an explicit strategy sidelining the native language. Both practical and
nationalistic issues may be invoked.
The issue of cross cultural communication can be approached from many angles within cross
cultural management. Language per se is rarely discussed, but it will be obvious that for any
communication to take place, a common language is required. In a homogeneous national
context a shared native language can be taken for granted. But what happens when a
company goes multinational, or when a national company starts recruiting internationally? In
such situations, the issue of language has to be addressed and choices of strategies have to
be made. The concept of language management refers to strategies regarding the choice of
functional language for international organizations, and is also relevant for national
organizations with a multilingual workforce. Such strategies may be explicit, with
management deciding on a clearly formulated policy for a corporate language, or,
alternatively, a practice may develop whereby the communicative needs of an organization
are solved on an ad hoc basis. Irrespective of strategy, all international organizations are
likely to have communicative needs straddling language barriers, and may have to decide on
2
whether to have one or more corporate languages. In addition, the increasing mobility of
labour across borders is leading many national organizations to adopt a corporate lingua
franca in addition to the national language. In most cases this will be English. The
emergence of a lingua franca was commented on in The Economist (07 August 2004) in the
following manner: “After Babel, a new common tongue”.
Despite the crucial role played by language in communication the issue has received little
attention in management literature, which has led to language being referred to as the
‘forgotten factor’ (Marschan et al., 1997) in multinational management or as ‘Babel in
business’ (Harzing et al., 2010). However, in recent years a growing body of research
addressing the issue of language management in linguistically diverse organizations has
emerged, and the topic has also been addressed as an aspect of diversity management
(Jonsen et al., 2010). Parallel to this development, increasing attention has been devoted to
the role of English as a lingua franca. The globalization of business and the globalization of
English usage are closely interlinked, and a discussion of language management and choice
of corporate language will need to take both aspects into account. In the following, we will
look into English as a lingua franca and the implications of choosing English as a corporate
language, before outlining some best practices.
English as a lingua franca (ELF)
When people communicate across language barriers, they may choose between using the
language of one of the interlocutors; employing an interpreter; or opting for a language which
is not the first language of any party, but which is spoken by all participants in the
communicative situation. The first option implies that one of the parties may be at a
disadvantage linguistically, and perhaps feel that their first language is somehow inferior to
that of the other party. Finding an interpreter with the right qualifications and whom you can
trust may be both difficult and time-consuming. It also entails extra costs. This leaves the
3
third option, where the interlocutors share the situation of communicating in a language
which is not their mother tongue. In the 21st century, English dominates in this role.
In the course of history, different languages have functioned in this way, Latin and
French being well-known cases in point. The present position of English, however, is
unprecedented in history, and has both geographical-historical and socio-cultural reasons.
As for issues relating to geography and history, we have to look to the expansion of British
influence that started in the early 17th century, leading to the British Empire and English
being present in every continent. In addition, in the mid-twentieth century English was
adopted for various official purposes by many newly independent states. This expansion of
English may be conceptualised in terms of concentric circles, where the inner circle
comprises the countries where it is the primary language (e.g. the UK, the US); the outer or
extended circle where it is extensively used in institutional contexts (e.g. India, Singapore);
and the expanding or extending circle, which includes countries where the importance of
English as an international language is recognised (e.g. China, Russia, the EU). When it
comes to the socio-cultural aspects, the period following the end of the First World War
consolidated the position of English that had been previously acquired through political
expansion. Salient factors in this process are the establishing of international organizations,
e.g. the United Nations and, later, the European Union; scientific cooperation and
publications; popular culture; and the rapid expansion of internet communication (Crystal,
2003).
Another aspect to take into account is the internationalisation of higher education,
which is rapidly expanding the number of English-language master programmes. This
process is driven by the status of English-language universities and the hegemony of English
as a language of publication in scholarly journals. In a European context, the Bologna
Process starting in 1999 introduced a standardisation of European higher education in order
to facilitate exchange and mobility, encouraging the use of English (Graddol, 2006). We thus
find that countries in the expanding circle increasingly strive to attract international students,
4
as witnessed by English-language versions of universities’ webpages aimed at this target
group.
With the rise of China as a global economic force one may well ask if English will be
replaced by Mandarin as the top language worldwide for business. At the time of writing,
however, Mandarin scores second to English on business usefulness, based on measures
like number of speakers, number of countries where the language is official, along with those
nations’ populations, financial power, educational and literacy rates (Bloomberg, 2013).
Other factors that may be relevant concerns how easy it is to learn Mandarin as a second
language, where factors like the writing system and it being a tonal language present barriers
to large groups of would-be learners.
There is a growing trend to employ the term English as a lingua franca (ELF) when
used in communication between people who have different first languages (L1s), and where
it is acceptable to retain features of one’s L1. ELF then becomes primarily a contact
language that is used as a means of communication between non-native speakers (Jenkins,
2007). Approached from this angle, it follows that the English used by non-native speakers
represents a legitimate development of the language which ‘enables its users to express
themselves more freely without having to conform to norms which represent the sociocultural
identity of other people’ (Howatt and Widdowson, 2004). An article in the Financial Times (1
March 2012) describes the case of a Japanese employee meeting with a Belgian, a Chilean
and an Italian, none of whom spoke excellent English. Knowing that the others also made
mistakes made communication easier. This line of thinking makes ELF usage a branch of the
language with its own identity, whose development is progressing independently at its own
pace and in keeping with the communicative requirements of its speakers.
As the ELF concept also embraces native – non-native speaker interaction, native
speakers may find that their usage can be challenged (Henderson, 2005). It may seem like a
paradox that English spoken by those who do not have it as their L1 may be easier to
understand than native variants, but this has come to the fore in EU communicative
situations. An article in the Financial Times (29 March 2012) points out that idioms used by
5
native speakers may be hard to decipher, as illustrated by the following example: ‘One
Englishman described a recent controversial report as ‘a bit of a tree shaker’. He said of a
group making some anti-establishment proposals ‘They don’t want to be seen as ponytailed’’.
Also, the use of indirect communication or understatement by native British speakers
causes misunderstanding to the extent of necessitating guidelines for interpretation in EU
communication. A case in point is ‘I hear what you say’ which in British English means ‘I
disagree and I do not want to discuss it any further’, and not ‘I accept your point of view’,
which would be the literal interpretation (The Economist, 02 September 2004).
The notion of ELF communication, then, is to be conceived of separately from the
major native variants of the English language, changing the focus from imitating native norms
to that of developing functional communicative practices. Introducing English – or ELF – as a
corporate language is not, however, a straightforward endeavour. In the following, we will
look into some of the challenges that have been identified with regard to the use of English
as a corporate language.
The implications of choosing English as a corporate language
Adopting English as a corporate language is a decision that may be taken at the managerial
level, in which case formal guidelines for its usage in company contexts will be specified.
Typical candidates for regulation will be corporate websites and formal written
documentation, including meetings, minutes, and emails as part of company records. When it
comes to formal oral contexts; meetings, negotiations and presentations will also come under
this heading. The implementation of a linguistic strategy, however, may often occur on an ad
hoc basis. If we are looking at a company where the majority have a language other than
English as their L1, it will be common practice to prefer using the L1, e.g. in meetings. To
comply with company guidelines, however, minutes will have to be produced in English for
records to be available to all members of staff. There may also be guidelines for language
6
use in social situations, but it is more difficult to ensure that they are observed. Indeed,
members of staff may prefer to use their L1 in informal communication.
This prompts the question of whether the introduction of English solves all the
communicative challenges caused by different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, or
whether it also raises problems that need to be addressed. The issue may be approached
both from a microperspective, i.e. its implications for the individual employee, and a
macroperspective, i.e. its implications at the corporate level.
Application 1.1 Activity: Plan a language management strategy
How would you would plan a language management strategy for a company outsourcing
some of its activities to China?
At the micro or individual level
For most people, the workplace is an arena that combines professional and social aspects,
and where a shared language is necessary to perform adequately in both respects. When
the entire workforce are native speakers of the same language this is obviously not a
problem. But what happens when new employees who do not speak this language enter the
workplace, and English is introduced as the corporate language? Even in countries where
the level of English proficiency is high this situation has been demonstrated to have a
number of unforeseen consequences, both of a professional and a social nature. An article in
the Financial Times (19 April, 2012) highlights the fact that companies tend to underestimate
the psychological stress that a language change can cause.
At a professional level, employees have to adapt to performing tasks using English as
a means of communication. However, staff members who do not master the corporate
language may experience difficulties using the power and influence granted to them by their
professional status if their language proficiency is perceived as inadequate.
7
Disempowerment may affect the way they perceive themselves and they will develop coping
strategies such as avoiding situations requiring the use of the corporate language. As a
consequence, frustration caused by the inability to communicate in an adequate fashion may
have an adverse effect on both job satisfaction and performance (Charles, 2007). The
following description by an employee interviewed in the above mentioned article in the
Financial Times provides a good illustration of this point: ‘It was the toughest time of my
whole life…. I couldn’t communicate. I couldn’t express my ideas. Because I couldn’t say
anything, I just felt maybe I am not so smart.’
Similarly, there is a risk that documentation may not be produced due to poor language
proficiency. There is also a hidden cost aspect involved, as authoring professional
communications may be more time-consuming for the non-native speaker.
Another consequence may be the formation of group boundaries according to
language barriers. This is referred to as language clustering, i.e. the tendency to prefer
communication with persons from the same linguistic background, thus maintaining the
symbolic power of the national language (Tange and Lauring, 2009). Further, this situation
may engender a polarization of group identities, and the reinforcement and maintenance of
stereotypes. The formation of group identities will be compounded by the use of parallel
information networks, code switching and power-authority distortions determined by
language capabilities (Feely and Harzing, 2003). The failure to communicate effectively may
therefore be the start of a vicious circle that will lead to even less effective communication. It
should, however, be noted that the relationship between language and national identity is not
necessarily causal, and that employees may accommodate their communication in order to
adapt (Lauring, 2008). Research also indicates that the use of a common language for
management communication has a greater impact on group cohesion than for personal
communication or work communication. In other words, the negative effects of using more
than one language within an organization must be nuanced (Lauring and Selmer, 2010).
The marginalisation of people on the basis of language in communicative settings has
also been demonstrated to have a negative impact on knowledge sharing, and may result in
8
thin communication, i.e. less socializing in the form of small talk and gossip (Tange and
Lauring, 2009). These are forms of communication that are major contributors to
understanding the way an organization works.
It would be reasonable to assume that in countries where English is taught from a
very young age the use of English should be effortless. However, the general level of
proficiency tends to be overestimated, and those who have insufficient language skills may
hesitate to contribute as they fear losing face or even being ridiculed if they make
pronunciation errors or lack vocabulary. This is a reflection made by a native speaker of
English: ‘Most Norwegians can converse to a very commendable degree, but few are fluent
enough to understand all that is said to them, to appreciate nuances, and to answer using
words that express exactly what they mean. That is, Norwegians are much less effective in
English than they are in Norwegian’ (Habert and Lillebø, 1988, 80).
Generally speaking, people have a broader linguistic spectrum to draw on when
employing their first language, and thus tend to prefer using it in most contexts. On this
background it is hardly surprising that informal communication may represent the most
problematic setting for non-native speakers (Charles, 2007). Thus, there is ample evidence
that people revert to their first language in social situations such as lunch breaks, excluding
those who rely on ELF to understand what is going on. Finally, even speakers with relatively
high fluency may encounter problems in situations that require the use of humour,
symbolism, negotiation and persuasion. These skills are important at the managerial level,
and language proficiency may become a factor with regard to promotion prospects (Feely
and Harzing, 2003). On the one hand, inadequate language skills may constitute a glass
ceiling. On the other, language proficiency may lead to informal power within the
organization. The concept of language brokers has been introduced to describe local
employees who are able to bridge the communicative gap due to their language skills. These
employees will in many cases receive more power than is granted to them by their formal
status in the organization and their opportunities for promotion will increase (Van den Born
and Peltokorpi, 2010).
9
Some of the findings referred to above may be discussed in terms of sensemaking
theory, which provides a framework for approaching how the individual employees manage
to interpret their environment and try to create a shared understanding of experienced
situations (Weick, 1995). A key element in sensemaking is the construction of narratives that
are told, stored and shared in the organization. Needless to say, verbal communication, i.e.
language, is crucial to this process. In view of the findings in language management literature
presented earlier, such as thin communication in organizations using English as a functional
language, the difficulties posed by informal communication, and the existence of shadow
structures (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999), it seems obvious that sensemaking presents
particular challenges in linguistically diverse organizations. It also seems likely that
involvement in sensemaking activities is crucial to job satisfaction and hence to the
organization’s ability to attract and retain international knowledge workers.
In conclusion, at a personal or micro level language issues may impact on social
interaction, lead to feelings of exclusion and to having an incomplete understanding of
organizational processes. Also, in cases where there is a mismatch between employees’
functional and language skills, some may be assigned positions on the basis of linguistic
rather than professional ability whereas others may meet a glass ceiling. Both scenarios may
have a negative impact on career prospects and job satisfaction.
Application 2.2 Case study: “we both speak English”
A British company moving to the US expected that crossing the Atlantic should be simpler
than entering an emerging market. After all, the countries speak the same language.
”We both speak English, and that really is the problem,” says Jim Prevor, who runs the
Perishable Pundit blog. When a retailer enters an overseas market, whether Korea, China,
Brazil or Russia, ”they listen more. They engage more”, he says. ”Whereas when they come
to the US, the similarities are so obvious, the ability function here is so obvious, that there is
10
tremendous temptation to think that Americans are just like Brits or Brits are just like
Americans” (Financial Times, 05 September 2011).
On the basis of this case, what advice would you give British companies entering the US
market?
At the macro or corporate level
In the above we have looked at the individuals in the organization, who are the ones at the
receiving end of corporate language decisions. In the following we will look into the
processes behind language management decisions, and assess their impact at the overall
corporate level.
In view of the centrality of language in corporate communication it is surprising that
the issue has no direct representation in the theoretical frameworks that are employed to
explain corporate decisions such as market entry and subsidiary control. In recent years,
however, some research has emerged shedding light on the need to align language
strategies with the company’s overall commercial strategy. This is particularly important in
the case of multinational companies (MNCs) with units in countries that do not share a
national language. It has, for instance, been pointed out that it is essential to design
language systems to balance global integration with local adaptation, and that MNCs should
designate a functional language for verbal and written use. The extent to which such a
functional language is used within an organization is described with the aid of the concept
breadth, which refers to how widespread the language is across geographically disperse
units, and intensity, referring to how frequently the language is used by members of the
organization. The choice of functional language and the breadth and intensity of this
language should thus be made according to whether the MNC has a global, multidomestic or
hybrid core strategy (Luo and Shenkar, 2006).
Language strategies may also be integrated with human resource management,
distinguishing between ethnocentric, polycentric and geocentric strategies (van den Born and
11
Peltokorpi, 2010). Ethnocentric organizations will seek to extend best practices from the
parent company to its subsidiaries, will rely heavily on home country expatriates and will
typically have formal language policies to ensure control, coordination and communication.
Polycentric organizations, on the other hand, will seek to enhance local adaptation and exert
limited control from headquarters. As a result, local languages are usually used in the
subsidiaries. Geocentric organizations will seek to combine local and parent practices and
will often recruit managers from a global pool of workers, which creates a need for a lingua
franca. It may, however, be difficult to apply these strategies in practice for a number of
context-specific reasons. In many cases there will be an incongruity between an employee’s
functional and language skills, and MNCs may be obliged to ‘hybridize’ their HRM practices,
i.e. to standardize and localize at the same time. By using flexible language policies, if may
be possible to have diversified recruitment and selection policies according to the type of
organization at hand. Thus, in ethnocentric organizations, the choice of the local language as
the main medium may be necessary in environments where the workforce does not possess
the necessary language skills in order to enhance communication within units. Otherwise,
these relationships will suffer. In a polycentric organization, the obvious choice will also be to
use the local language. However, this strategy may create problems for communication
between units, and, as a result, subsidiaries risk becoming isolated. As a response to these
challenges, headquarters may choose to increase centralized HRM practices and send home
country expatriates, a strategy which may generate problems of its own. Geocentric
organizations will recruit managers from a global pool of workers, and will thereby be able to
pick employees who may be more familiar with the local language and culture than parent
country nationals (see also chapter 5).
Another approach to language management at the macro level is to study its effect on
control and coordination processes and procedures. It has been observed that language is
not taken into account in the literature on informal control in horizontal communication
linkages. However, language may be both a barrier and a facilitator and is an important
channel of influence through which power is exerted in MNCs, and the lack of a common
12
language may lead to shadow structures in the organization and to selective transmission of
information (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999). Similarly, it has been pointed out that there is a
trend among MNCs to adopt flatter structures and to rely more on horizontal communication
in order to ensure the integration of the various units. A distinction may be drawn between
core communication, which is crucial to the development of a firm and functional
communication, a set of communicative standard routines, such as business letters and
technical documentation. Functional communication, which is based on solutions to wellknown routine problems, poses considerably less problems than core communication. Three
communication circuits may be identified: between headquarters and subsidiaries, between
subsidiary and home markets, and between headquarters and clients (Andersen and
Rasmussen, 2004).
It has also been noted that the presence of international workers has led to a
professionalization of the organization in the sense that communication becomes more
formal, and implicit work procedures disappear. Linguistic issues thereby affect not only
social interaction and knowledge sharing, but also organizational culture in general (Tange
and Lauring, 2009).
Language management is also crucial with regard to the external communication
needs of MNCs. Face-to-face business meetings and negotiations are an essential part of
any MNC’s activities. The outcomes may be agreements and negotiated deals that have a
major impact on company strategy and overall performance. Unlike written communication,
oral contexts depend on the actual performance carried out in a specific amount of time
allocated to the purpose, and negotiation skills and professional competence are only useful
to the extent that they are actively expressed in the situation involved. It has been noted that
the presence of native speakers may hamper non-native speakers’ performance. The
following account referred to in the Financial Times (1 March 2012) is a good illustration:
‘When an American or British manager walked in, everything changed. The native speakers
talked too fast and used mysterious expressions, such as ‘from the horse’s mouth’ (which
horse?) The others clammed up’. This challenge was addressed by the Groupe Consultatif
13
Actuariel Europeen (GCAE), which had noted the unequal participation of members in
meetings where native and non-native speakers were communicating in English. In addition
to cultural and organizational factors, this was ascribed to the language barrier and the
varying proficiency among the non-native speakers. Participants reported frustrations relating
to not being able to formulate their views before the discussion had moved on to other
issues. Faced with this problem, some preferred to remain silent when they could not find the
right word, as coming up with a ‘home-made’ translation was not always seen as an option.
They also reported problems concerning comprehension due to difficult accents, high speed
and low volume, and issues like expressing opinions and interrupting, in addition to being
diplomatic or polite when expressing difficult messages. It was also found that participants
felt more comfortable in small than in large meetings. Interestingly, this situation may give
unequal access to the decision-making process, as a lack of linguistic confidence may lead
to participants being more likely to comply with the demands of others (Rogerson-Revell,
2007). However, it was found that even if non-native speakers were less active, anomalies
due to non-native speech did not appear to impede communication (Rogerson-Revell, 2008).
As we have seen, language management decisions should be viewed as an integral
part of an organization’s overall strategy. They are closely linked to the choice an
ethnocentric, geocentric or polycentric strategy. In addition, we have seen that language
issues should be taken into account in HRM policies. When it comes to professional contexts
where employees are expected to perform using ELF, there is also a need to address
language as a potentially complicating factor in the communicative situation, and identify best
practices that can be used to counter potential problems. A case can be made for a strategy
where English is made mandatory as a corporate language (Neeley, 2012). On the basis of
the above, however, we proceed on the assumption that ELF as a corporate language may
be adopted as part of a gradual process, where its benefits are recognised by employees,
and where they can accommodate ELF usage to their own culture and language.
14
Application 2.3 The Statoil case: discussion questions
If you were in charge of Statoil’s language policy, how would you deal with the situation from
the opening case? Which factors would you take into account to design a corporate language
management strategy?
Best practices
ELF is today recognised as an essential tool in international business communication,
creating a need to establish best practices for its use. Three partly overlapping topics can be
identified, namely strategies for informal or social interaction, for written communication, and
for oral contexts such as meetings, negotiations and presentations.
Informal or social interaction
Informal and social settings are important when it comes to sensemaking, that is,
understanding how an organization works and the role of the individual in organizational
processes. Concepts like thin communication and shadow structures are relevant in this
context. On this background management should strive to encourage the use of ELF as the
principal medium also in informal settings. If management does not have a language policy
for informal communication, interaction in social situations is more likely to take place in
employees’ native language, with language clustering as a potential consequence.
Information networks that employees rely on to orient themselves will thus not be available to
everyone, only to those who are within the right language loop. In national organizations, this
will normally only include the speakers of the native language in question, leaving out the
rest. Employees who are only on short-term assignment may not want to invest in learning
the language, and the feeling of exclusion generated by the situation may also have a
negative impact on their motivation to prolong their employment. Relevant HR policies to
counter this development should include measures that encourage increased interaction,
such as reorganising labour, using multilingual teamwork consistently and providing
15
platforms for informal interaction. Other, more obvious, suggestions include the provision of
language training.
Written communication
Producing written texts in English without having the right level of proficiency is clearly a
barrier to effective communication. Documentation like websites and external communication
will generally be produced by professionals with the appropriate proficiency, but when it
comes to day-to-day communication like emails and brief reports this may not always be the
case. If these tasks are given to employees without adequate language skills, there is a
possibility that documents may not be produced, or that they are too time-consuming, which
increases the costs. In addition, some employees may find themselves being used as
language consultants even if it is not part of their job specifications, taking on the role of
language brokers. Since written communication is part of company records, this is a
language management issue that should receive appropriate focus. One remedy is to
allocate company resources to set up templates and give general guidelines for corporate
email correspondence and meetings minutes and reports. As this will not answer all
questions, language broker functions could be set up as a part of an employee’s job
specifications. Issues of native — non-native communication should also be considered. In
an interview with the Financial Times (19 April, 2012), Thomas Balgheim, chief executive for
Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Argentina and Brazil at Japanese-owned NTT Data,
observes that native English speakers are prone to use hard-to-grasp expressions and talk
too quickly. To make his company’s English-language internal briefings an easier read for
non-native speakers, he asks Germans and Italians to produce the first draft because their
simple sentences and plain vocabulary meet the needs of a multicultural workforce.
Finally, language training and taking linguistic ability into account when recruiting are also
best practices to consider.
Meetings, negotiations and presentations
16
It stands to reason that in meetings and negotiations the ability to speak the relevant
language with confidence is essential to participate. While preparation and topic familiarity
are always crucial in such contexts, they become even more important if the means of
communication is ELF and many native languages are represented. Asking questions to
check comprehension is also important, as the let-it-pass strategy observed in much ELF
communication may lead to expensive misunderstandings.
The role of the chair in such meetings is also a demanding one, and should include
making explicit any potentially problematic points such as technical jargon before the
meeting starts. Another thing is encouraging contributions from non-native speakers and
giving positive feedback. As pointed out in an article in the Financial Times (19 April 2012),
focus should be on what people say rather than on how they say it. Needless to say, silent
participants may have important contributions to make – after all, they have been sent to the
meeting for a purpose. Another best practice is to summarise at appropriate intervals, and at
the end of a session, as incomplete understanding may give rise to quasi-communication.
Keeping vocabulary simple and rephrasing potentially complicated language is also useful.
Native speakers of English should be made aware of the fact that many non-native ELF
speakers of the language find it more difficult to speak in their presence than in a group of
non-native speakers only. In addition, native speakers are often perceived as difficult to
understand due to rapid speech, unfamiliar accents, cultural references, slang, idioms and
metaphors. Native speaker strategies to overcome language challenges include speaking
slowly and clearly, repeating by using different words, and avoiding vocabulary and idioms
that may be assumed to be unfamiliar to an international audience.
Finally, we can add a few words on presentations. As the presenter holds the floor,
this is a situation that does not include the challenge of participating in interaction, barring
questions, where a moderator may help. From the audience’s point of view it is an advantage
if the best practices referred to under meetings and negotiations are taken into account. In
addition, the presenter will generally have some kind of visual support in the form of a
17
presentation tool like PowerPoint; and further help the audience by providing printouts of
presenter notes.
Pause for reflection
What are the potential implications (positive/negative) of using ELF as a corporate language
for a workforce with different L1s?
Conclusion
The aim of the present chapter has been to draw attention to the need for language
management when English lingua franca (ELF) has been chosen as a corporate language in
MNCs and in national organizations with a multilingual workforce. While choosing ELF in
such contexts has the advantage of creating a shared means of communication it also has a
number of implications that should be addressed by management as part of HR policies. We
have looked into these issues from a micro or personal level and from a macro or corporate
level, in addition to making suggestions for best practices. We conclude by presenting some
key concepts which can be useful when reflecting upon cross cultural communication
strategies.
Application 2.4 Glossary of key concepts
breadth and intensity – the concept of breadth is used to describe the extent to which a
functional language is used in an organization, that is how widespread the language is
across geographically dispersed units, while intensity describes how frequently the
language is used by members of the organization.
contact language – a language that is used as a means of communication between those
who have different L1s.
18
ethnocentric, geocentric and polycentric strategies – organizations that seek to extend best
practices from the parent company to its subsidiaries, and that rely heavily on home
country expatriates are referred to as ethnocentric. They will typically have formal
language policies to ensure control, coordination and communication. Polycentric
organizations focus on local adaptation; exert limited control from headquarters and
tend to use local languages in the subsidiaries. Geocentric organizations aim to
combine local and parent practices, and tend to prefer global recruitment. This type of
strategy will lead to the need for a lingua franca.
functional communication and core communication – used to distinguish between routine and
non-routine communication. The latter is considered more challenging for non-native
speakers.
functional language – language that is formally designated for oral and written use in an
organization.
language clustering – the tendency to prefer communication with persons from the same
linguistic background, leading to the formation of in- vs out-groups based on linguistic
identity. Carries risk of polarised group identities and stereotyping.
language management – refers to strategies regarding the choice of functional language for
international organizations
native speaker – a person for whom a specific language is their first language or the one
which they normally and naturally speak, esp. a person who has spoken the language
since earliest childhood (synonym: L1 speaker) (OED).
parallel information networks – in organizations, information is transmitted in both formal and
informal contexts. As this process takes place through the medium of language,
employees with inadequate linguistic skills may be excluded from the informal
processes, and only have access to information communicated in formal contexts.
Thus, shadow structures may develop where salient aspects of the information flow
bypasses those with inadequate language capabilities.
19
sensemaking – concept used about the process whereby individuals extract cues from
situations to understand the way an organization works. Thus, employees entering a
new place of work will need to orient themselves as to their environment, which is
greatly aided if one has access to informal networks. The role of language thus
becomes important, as this is a central means whereby such sensemaking takes place.
shadow structures – communicative situations in MNCs, where language clustering impacts
on language-based information flows; a situation that may be in conflict with the
company’s formal organizational structure.
thin communication – refers to communicative structures where employees with limited
language capabilities tend to be marginalised in informal contexts, leading to less
socialising in the form of small talk and gossip. As a consequence, they lose vital
aspects of the communication spectrum.
Application 2.5 Activity: coordination of a virtual team
You are going to organise and coordinate a virtual team of executives who come from four
different L1 backgrounds, namely a Swede, a Chinese, an Indian and a US American. The
only language they share is English (ELF), and one of your tasks is to make sure that ELF
functions as an effective medium of communication. How would you address this issue in
your first briefing of the team?
References
Andersen, H. and Rasmussen, E.S. (2004) ‘The role of language skills in corporate
communication’, Corporate Communication 9, 3, 231ff.
Bloomberg (2013) ’Mandarin Chinese most useful business language after English’,
20
www.bloomberg.com, accessed 26 February 2013.
Charles, M. (2007) ‘Language matters in global communication’, Journal of Business
Communication 44, 3, 260–82.
Crystal, D. (2003) English as a global language, 2nd edn, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Feely, A.J. and Harzing, A.-W. (2003) ‘Language management in multinational companies’,
Cross Cultural Management 10, 2, 37–52.
Financial Times (01 March 2012) ’Executives speak in a language of their own’.
Financial Times (05 September 2011) ‘Bridging the pond is a stern test for retailers’.
Financial Times (19 April 2012) ’Lessons in a common language’.
Financial Times (29 March 2012) ’Penny has yet to drop for English speakers’. (Pony-tailed =
not belonging to mainstream culture or practice; tree-shaker = very powerful).
Graddol, D. (2006) EnglishNext. http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-researchenglishnext.htm, accessed 07 March 2013.
Habert, K. and Lillebø, A. (1988) Made in Norway: Norwegians as other see them,
Bekkestua, Norwegian School of Management Press.
Harzing, A.-W., Köster, K. and Magner, U. (2010) ‘Babel in business: The language barrier
and its solutions in the HQ–subsidiary relationship’, Journal of World Business (2010), doi:
10.1016/j.jwb.2010.07.005.
Henderson, J.K. (2005) ‘Language diversity in international management teams’,
International studies of management and organization, 35, 1,66–82.
Howatt, A.P.R. with H.G. Widdowson (2004) A history of English language teaching, 2nd
edn, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M.L. and Schneider, S.C. (2010) ‘Diversity and its not so diverse
literature: An international perspective’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
10.1.
21
Lauring, J. (2008) ‘Rethinking social identity theory in international encounters: Language
use as a negotiated object for identity making’, International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management 8, 3, 343–61.
Lauring, J. and Selmer, J. (2010) ‘Multicultural organizations: Common language and group
cohesiveness’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 10, 3, 267–84.
Luo, Y. and Shenkar, O. (2006) ‘The multinational corporation as a multilingual community:
Language and organization in a global context’, Journal of International Business Studies,
37, 3, 321ff.
Marschan-Piekkari, R., Welch, D. and Welch, L. (1999) ’In the shadow: the impact of
language on structure, power and communication in the multinational’, International Business
Review, 8, 4, 421–440.
Marschan, R., Welch, D. and Welch, L. (1997) ‘Language: The forgotten factor in
multinational management’, European Management Journal 15, 5, 591–98.
Neeley, T. (2012) ’Global business speaks English’, Harvard Business Review, May 2012.
OED. The Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oed.com/
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007) ‘Using English for international business: A European case
study’, English for Specific Purposes 26, 103-120.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2008) ‘Participation and performance in international business
meetings’, English for Specific Purposes 24, 401–421.
Tange, H. and Lauring, J. (2009) ‘Language management and social interaction within the
multilingual workplace’, Journal of Communication Management 13, 3, 218–232.
The Economist (02 September 2004) ’I understand, up to a point’.
The Economist (07 August 2004) ’After Babel, a new common tongue’.
Van den Born, F. and Peltokorpi, V. (2010) ‘Language policies and communication in
multinational companies’, Journal of business communication, 47, 2, 97–118.
Weick, K.E. (1995) Sensemaking in organizations, Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage.
22
23