Contemporary Business Communication and One Language Policy in Business - Essay Example

Contemporary Business Communication - one language policy in business Introduction The emergence of English as a global language has led to its use in companies and multinationals found in countries where English is not the main language of use. Countries like France, Spain, Belgium and others in the Caribbean regions have their own languages which are classified as national language. However, the globalization of business and the emergence of multinationals that have cross border operations has led to the emergence of companies which operates in non-English countries yet using English as their official language. According to Neeley (2012), ‘unrestricted multilingualism is inefficient and gets into the way of accomplishing business goals’ which is a recipe for failure and closure of business operations. In this article, Neeley highlights the benefits of adopting a language with a global appeal like English as the official mode of communication for multinationals with cross border operations. By using different languages depending on the country of operation, multinationals like Samsung would adopt English in the united states and the united kingdom, Spanish in Spain and the southern American and Caribbean states, French in France and its former colonies in Africa and Latin America among other languages. This leads to complication and lack of uniform operation and mode of communicating important policy issues from the head office which uses Korean as the official language (Fredriksson, Barner & Piekkari, 2006). Multilingualism may be viewed as an approach of eliminating the challenges of communication barriers facing multinationals but its application in the entire organization affects the communication process and creates confusion. This lays ground for policy misinterpretation and lack of effective unit management and coherence with the head office. In this paper, the sentiments of Neeley (2012) will be discussed in relation to the current use of English in multinationals operating in predominantly non-English countries. English as bilateral business language According to Neeley (2012), the adoption of a common communication mode is more than just being a good idea for organizations with domestic operations in the United States with international target market or companies in France intending to tap on the domestic market. The use of different languages in an organization affects the operation of the multinationals and constitutes to the inefficient management approaches. Organizations today exist as interactive places where communication is key to the success of the approaches adopted. Managers and supervisors of multinationals coordinate the task of employees based in different countries whose language may not be common to the supervisor’s. A number of factors have been attributed to the current emergence of English as a common communication language in multinationals across the globe (Bell, 2011). The current competitive pressure facing multinationals and domestic organization has led to the need to adopt a language that is beyond the borders of a country and spoken in more countries. Business excels through increased sales of goods and services and this is influenced by the ability of the seller and the buyer to communicate. With the business environment expanding beyond the boundaries of the domestic market, multinationals must adopt a language that can enhance the interaction process and increase sales for them to remain competitive. With the competition, companies that have stuck with their domestic language in the international markets have continued to perform dismally in the face of strong market competition. Companies like Japanese Toyota and Korean Samsung appreciated the role of English in global business and politics and adopted the language as their mode of communication. This enabled them to compete with countries that from predominantly English countries like Apple in the case of Samsung and General Motors in the case of Toyota. With the emergence of globalization, human resource approaches changed to create room for the development of international employees like expatriates and other forms of domestic employees. A company like FrenchCo which is based in France has its operations in the United Kingdom, the United States and some African countries (Toolan, 1997). The company has adopted a mixed human resource model with expatriates used to manage the subsidiaries in other countries. In such a situation, the use of multilingualism creates confusion and reduces the possibility of the subsidiary meeting the international goals of the parent company. In this kind of setting, the home based offices will communicate with the subsidiaries in most cases to pass issues dealing with policy and marketing approaches. In the event that such a company adopts French for the head office and English for the subsidiary in the US and Chinese for the China based unit, communication and corporation among the employees will remain a major challenge (Bell, 2011). This will create room for misinterpretation and confusion which will affect the possibility of achieving the goals of the company. Nestle for example, excelled in its food marketing due to the adoption of English as its global language of communication despite having its operations based in Switzerland (Janet & Ife, 2011). Neeley (2012) highlights the emergence of cross mergers and acquisition as one of the business processes that cannot succeed in a multilingual business environment. In the event that two companies based in different countries intend to merge their operations and increase their global influence, communication can present a massive challenge unless a common and global language is adopted. Negotiation for mergers is considered as some of the most challenging situations for business as the two businesses seek to strengthen their stakes and influence in the new business unit. This, however, becomes even more difficult in the situation where no common language exist for the two companies to use, affecting the common communication approaches that can be adopted by the organization (Toolan, 1997). Cross border mergers also face cultural integration challenges which are dominant in countries that are civilizations apart, making English as better ground for speeding the integration process. In most instances today, cross border companies that chose to merge adopt English as their common communication language even if none of the countries use English at the national level. When Hoechst from Germany and Rhone-Poulenc from France merged to form Aventis, the two companies settled on English as the official communication language. This has enabled Aventis to compete favourable with multinationals from the United Kingdom like GlaxoSmithKline and those from the United States like Pfizer (Bell, 2011). Today, china has grown into a major industrial and business powerhouse, competing with developed countries like the United States and European countries for market of processed goods. However, the use of Chinese language has remained restricted within the borders of the countries a big number of Chinese are currently studying English as compared to any other country. This is attributed to the growth of their domestic companies into multinationals with interest in countries that use English as the business language. To perform well in these markets, such companies must change their communication language to English both in china and in the global markets (Ghemawat, 2011). The internet and the World Wide Web is currently one of the most use businesses to across the world, with multinationals based in France, Belgium, japan, Korea and every other part of the world using the internet. It is used as a tool for marketing the products of the company, creating business links with other companies and suppliers. Due to the global appeal of the internet, it has adopted English as the default language and this has strengthened the use of English as a global means of communication (Fredriksson, Barner & Piekkari, 2006). According to Harris & Bargiela-Chiappini (2003), business setting has been a means for language contact between people and this explains the significant role that the development of a common language plays in the success of businesses. The language of business and the need to develop a common language has remained a major force since the time of Anne Johns in the 1987 linguistic publications. Globalization as a function of business has witnessed significant changes following the stages depicted by Friedman and the third stage that the world is today has made it essential for business understanding to exist (Charles, 2006). This can only be done through proper communication which has seen dramatic changes being made by traditional and domestic companies to conform to the global markets. The development of a shared language makes it possible for multinationals and individuals within these organisations to communicate and interact effectively (Janet & Ife, 2011). English has for long been considered as a universal language or ‘English lingua franca but the forces of globalization has changed its application beyond a universal language into a business English lingua franca according to Charles (2006). Today, the number of people who use English as their official language is higher compared to those who speak their native languages, further demonstrating the international development of English language. According to a study done by Crystal in 1997, 80% of English speakers by then were non-native English speakers and this number has today risen beyond this (Riikka, Wilhelm, & Rebecca, 2006). Challenges to successful English policies in multinationals The adoption of English as the global language of business has faced a number of challenges despite the significant progress that has this far been made. The adoption of English as the official business language in multinationals that originate from non-English speaking countries has created a number of costs and financial obligations that most companies have been keen to adopt. According to Reeney (2012), the aftershock of changes affects the use of English language by multinationals non-English speaking countries like France and Spain. This has been shown to affect employees more than other people in the multinationals as they are exposed to psychological shock of using a language they are not used to. Most companies in France used French as the internal communication language and the abrupt change to English affected the concentration and understanding of employees (Harris & Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003). A company like GlobalTech with parent operations in Germany but with other international subsidiary has adopted a spotty compliance to the use of English as the global business language. Despite adopting English as the official language, most product instructions and safety information on the products made from the company uses German as the official language. This affects customers and employees in other parts of the world like India to adhere to these rules thus affecting the effectiveness of the company. The adoption of English as the global business language has therefore dragged as most companies have only initiated compliance on paper but failed to develop mechanisms of ensuring that every employee uses the same language for domestic and international communication (Ghemawat, 2011). Haugh approach to politeness According to Haugh, politeness in a cross cultural environment adopts the approaches of dominance as fronted by Brown and Levinson in their politeness theory. Different cultures have different approaches to politeness and the use of practical approach to different challenges like language challenges in a predominantly English setup. Each sociocultural group has a different view of politeness and this is affected by the distinct social groupings within the organisation. The adoption of English in organization is a change process just like any other new idea introduced in companies, making it prone to resistance and low acceptability among the employees. With the threats it offers to the position of the employees and the job security, most employees of multinationals from non-native English speakers use all means possible to resist the adoption of English. A study conducted on organisations from non-English speaking countries has demonstrated that the adoption of English as the official communication language erodes the confidence of the employees. Most employees feel that the policy of using English as the official language is unfair irrespective of their fluency in the language. The loss of self-confidence as a result of the dominance gained by English as the global business language has impacted positively on businesses with global operations but negatively on non-native English speaking employees (Charles, 2006). FrenchCo company employees have continuously aired their disapproval of the organisation’s adoption of English as the official language, as they feel that their performance cannot be measured by the English they can possibly use in communication. In the phase of adopting English as the global language of communication, most employees become more worried about their position especially those whose fluency and understanding of the language is low. As a result, the growth of English as a global language of communication has continued to cause job security questions as was demonstrated by Reeney (2012) from interviewing GlobalTech, a German company that had adopted English as the global language of business. According to Reeney (2012), the critical role of English as a global business language makes an adoption framework essential if it seeks to eliminate the inefficiencies of multilingualism. In adopting a proper adoption framework, multinationals have higher chances of achieving their business goals and expanding beyond the boundaries of its domestic market. In the case of mergers and acquisition, the level of adoption of English as an official language of communication must also be made for the merged multinationals to exert its influence in the new market (Ghemawat, 2011). Cultural anthropology The pub is considered as an integral part of the English way of life and culture due to the high number of adult men and women who frequent pubs to socialise and discuss different issues. The pub has been considered as a perfect anthropological representation of the English way of life and this makes it a dominant feature in the global political English discourse. As a result, different anthropological studies have argued that discussing the political development of English cannot make any meaning without mentioning the input of the pub. Pubs describe the exact development of anthropological and cultural events due to the important role it plays in both men and women. Due to the organizational dynamism and negative energy that may affect implementation of English as the official language of business, a number of approaches must be used collectively. Employees in most situations are those affected by the communication glitch that arises from using a language they are not accustomed to. Though they may be fluent in English, the discomfort of using the language as the official language may make it challenging to adopt it. An adoption process that involves the input of all the employees will be essential as the skills of such employees operating in the head offices with a different language culture may be affected with the change shock. As a result, leaders in the organization must rally the employees to support the initiative by providing ways of improving their English skills and developing tolerance to those with communication difficulty arising from the changes (Riikka, Wilhelm, & Rebecca, 2006). In most instances, native English speakers rejoice if the company chose to use English as the global communication language which is at the behest of the non-native English speakers. To encourage the non-native speakers, original English language speakers should learn to communicate slowly to ease understanding among those who are learning to get used to the new official language. Coaching is critical in helping individuals who are non-English speakers to get used to the changes and reduce the possibility of resisting the change in the organization (Freely & Harzing, 2002). In this kind of setting, the home based offices will communicate with the subsidiaries in most cases to pass issues dealing with policy and marketing approaches. In the event that such a company adopts French for the head office and English for the subsidiary in the US and Chinese for the China based unit, communication and corporation among the employees will remain a major challenge. This will create room for misinterpretation and confusion which will affect the possibility of achieving the goals of the company. Nestle for example, excelled in its food marketing due to the adoption of English as its global language of communication despite having its operations based in Switzerland (Ghemawat, 2011). According to Feely and Harzing (2002), the growth of English as the global language of communication stemmed from the language barrier that has for long affected business in the international environment. Due to the lack of a common language to use in business transactions, most multinationals failed to meet the seller-buyer agreement and this affected their performance in the international market. In the event that language diversity exists for multinationals with international operations, uncertainty in the market increases and the benefits of the second language is watered down. The lack of a common negotiation language forced multinationals to enter only into markets that share their official language. This restricted growth and emergence of multinationals with operations in different continents as witnessed today due to the use of English as the global business language (Riikka, Wilhelm, & Rebecca, 2006). Conclusion The spread of English in different parts of the world have been attributed to a number of factors including the fact that they were the major colonisers in history. As results, English remain the only language that is used by a large number of non-native English speakers as compared to other languages in Europe. In business, globalization has led to the emergence of companies with massive international presence, operating in countries that use a completely different language as compared to their home country dialect. This has presented a number of challenges to multinationals who face the problem of negotiating with companies and business individuals who they have no common language with (Neeley, 2012). To increase competition and international presence of multinationals, the notion of multilingualism has been abandoned by a number of companies like Samsung, Toyota and nestle. This has increased their competitive advantage in countries with other languages like the United States, India and South Africa. The conclusion by Neeley (2012) that multilingualism increases inefficiency in the operation of multinationals is strongly supported in the essay. References Neeley, T 2012, Global Business Speaks English, Harvard Business Review, 90, 5, pp. 116-124 Ghemawat, P 2011, The Cosmopolitan Corporation, Harvard Business Review, 89, 5, pp. 92-99. Riikka, F, Wilhelm, B, & Rebecca, P 2006, The multinational corporation as a multilingual organization: The notion of a common corporate language, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 11, 4, pp. 406-423. Bell, K 2011, Politics and the English Language in The 21st Century, Harvard Business Review, 89, 9, pp. 134-135. Harris, S. & Bargiela-Chiappini, F 2003, Business as a site of language contact, Annual review of applied linguistics, 23, 155-169. Toolan, M 1997, Re-centering English: new English and global, English today, 52(13), 1-17. Charles, M 2006, Language matters in global communication, journal of business communication, 44(3), 260-282. Janet, C. & Ife, A 2011, Language across borders, New york: continuum. Fredriksson, R., Barner, W. & Piekkari, R 2006, The multinational corporation as a multinational organization: the notion of a common corporate language, international journal of corporate communication, 11(4), 406-423. Freely, A. & Harzing, A. 2002, Language management in multinational companies, international journal of cross cultural management. Read More