[lg policy] Harvard Business School blog: Leaders' Blindspots Undermine Their Global Language Policies

Sat May 22 13:07:31 UTC 2010

Leaders' Blindspots Undermine Their Global Language Policies

 (Editor's note: This post is part of a six-week blog series on how
leadership might look in the future. The conversations generated by
these posts will help shape the agenda of a symposium on the topic in
June 2010, hosted by HBS's Nitin Nohria, Rakesh Khurana, and Scott
Snook. This week's focus: cultural distinctions and diversity.)

Imagine walking into work tomorrow morning to find the following
email: "To fully become a global company, effective immediately, our
business language will be English. All verbal and written
communication should be conducted in English only." Full stop.

If you're a native English speaker, you may be celebrating. If you're
a nonnative speaker, what's your initial gut reaction? Try: "How am I
going to do this every day?" "My colleagues speak English much better
than I do." "What's going to happen to my career?" "I didn't sign up
for this." "I feel stupid when I speak English." Professionals expect
to progress, not regress, at work. For most, discovering that their
native language can no longer serve as a primary mode of communication
would be, to say the least, disruptive. Such an event has become the
reality for millions of employees around the world.

Of course, from a managerial perspective, unrestricted multilingualism
— where verbal and written communications are generated in multiple
languages — is inefficient. The proliferation of integrated
organizational systems, the need to tightly coordinate work and to
serve clients worldwide has accelerated the move towards the use of
English as a lingua franca (common language) no matter where companies
are headquartered. SAP and Siemens are based in Germany but have
mandated English as their business language; Kone Elevators in Sweden
has set English as its sole mode of business communication. Even
Microsoft in Beijing has implemented English as its business language
for its local Chinese employees. Indeed, the business case for the one
global language policy is indisputable.

Yet I've been surprised at the extent to which leaders of
multinational firms neglect a systematic implementation of these
programs. I once asked a leader of a high-profile European
multibillion dollar company how he went about preparing his employees
for the English policy he set two years earlier. He stared at me for a
few seconds and blurted, "We actually never talked about it." Then:
"We made the announcement and never brought it up again."

Perhaps this is an extreme case, but according to my research, most
leaders miss the ripple effects of a one global language policy. A
recent study reported how Siemens unveiled its mandate. The CEO
declared English as the official business language to promote
cross-unit efficiency and renamed units to their English word
equivalents, but did little else to socialize employees to the new
rule.

Failing to follow through can have a significant impact on employee
morale, professional identities, and overall productivity — and they
decrease efficiency, which is ironic given their intent. Many
nonnative speakers lose a great deal of latitude in their
communication ability, and, by extension, their professional capacity.
They fear being viewed as incompetent. Some feverishly rehearse oral
presentations before publicly presenting their arguments, or defer to
the most fluent speakers when presenting in front of managers. As a
result, they don't bring themselves fully to their work.

In response, leaders need to publicly destigmatize language
challenges. Granted many lingua franca companies do provide English
and cross-cultural training, but those won't allay workers' fears
about their daily work, sense of job security, and future career
prospects. Instead, companies should institute a full-out campaign
empowering nonnative speakers, and confirming that their contributions
are valued and their capabilities are respected. They should take
great care in creating an environment where employees can embrace the
mandate with relative ease. After all, language is social, emotional,
and intellectual, the source of identity and power and the most
fundamental source of human interaction.

A one-language directive is likely the most important policy that
multinationals can institute for their globalizing companies. But the
policy is the beginning, not the end, of leadership challenges posed
by global communication. Helping employees see the one English global
language policy as an opportunity for personal growth rather than
professional failure is the vital first step.

Tsedal Neeley is an Assistant Professor in the Organizational Behavior
area at Harvard Business School.

(Editor's note: This post is part of a six-week blog series on how
leadership might look in the future. The conversations generated by
these posts will help shape the agenda of a symposium on the topic in
June 2010, hosted by HBS's Nitin Nohria, Rakesh Khurana, and Scott
Snook. This week's focus: cultural distinctions and diversity.)

Guest
 Father Jemonde Taylor  19 hours ago

Excellent article! I read this article in light of the Episcopal
Church’s Domestic Poverty Conference I recently attended in Newark,
NJ. There I met people from the Episcopal Church of Our Savior
(Chinese) in NYC. This church saw that its parishioners were business
people who where shy about giving presentations in English. They also
noticed that their Chinese young people felt reticent about speaking
English in public or giving presentations. This affected their morale
and effectiveness. This church started a Toastmasters group to help
the Chinese immigrants improve their English. They also started ESL
courses. This church also teaches community children and adults
Cantonese. Latinos and Blacks come weekly to learn Cantonese.

I find your article most appropriate and clear. It fits into the
larger context of planning and implementation. All decrees need follow
up. When I think back to my corporate experience, we did feasibility
studies to see if a project could succeed. It seems that businesses
are not doing feasibility studies about implementing the English only
policy. Your articles shows that companies need planning and follow
up. Something as simple as implementing a Toastmasters group or ESL at
a company in conjunction with English only policy helps.

I'm glad you bring up the impact on morale and performance. When we
don't hear people speak in meetings, we think they are not active
participants. If non-native speakers deflect to native English
speakers, unofficially the native speakers get the credit. This is, in
a subtle way, setting up discrimination practices since non-native
speakers do not feel empowered. So I certainly appreciate that your
article deals not only with the tangible business impact, but also
with the emotional, morale, and psychological impact that affects the
bottom line.
Flag Like ReplyReply

 Stevevied  21 hours ago

Speaking of language, in banking and investment there is a real need
for a single language, English.

Robert Rubin admitted in 2008 that he did not understand many of the
investment vehicles that were being developed day-by-day.

Rabbi Abraham Heschel observed that worlds create worlds.

"Financease" obfuscates.

There is no reason for companies, consultants, investment managers,
bankers, government officials, politicians and academics to complicate
what can be explained in 'plain English' to reasonably intelligent
people. It would be refreshing to insist ask this from the people who
presumably serve our needs and interests.
Flag Like ReplyReply

Expand »
Guest
 58 Foo  1 day ago

It is interesting that we, in many of our own life and work
transitions, do not truly think about the best way to approach
transitions, and place too much emphasis on some of the high level
requirements and not the sometimes more crucial steps of how to reach
this goal effectively and efficiently.

To me this is somewhat parallel to when people transition to new
sports. They dont go straight in to participate uninformed and
uninitiated to the rules or regime. They practice and plan ahead to be
useful participants when the 'game' is 'in session'.

I think more corporate leaders need to consider the [lingual] growth
stages of reaching new proficiency levels and objectives, in
perspective, just as the author has indicated. For some reason this
approach is applied to other areas, but seems to often be forgotten
when language is involved.
Flag Like ReplyReply

Expand »
Guest
 yen  1 day ago

Even speaking English well with slight accent is viewed as the person
is less knowledgeable. We observe that even Americans are impressed
and excited by British accent. For workers what is important is to be
proficient in their trade with reasonable knowledge of the common
language.
Flag Like ReplyReply

Expand »
Guest
 Aimee  1 day ago

The key is implementing a strategy, not just a policy. It simply does
not makes sense to not have a common business language. To be
effective and efficient, global leaders need to be able to communicate
in a common language. It's true that this may seem unfair at first;
after all, this isn't pre Tower of Babel, and English is a second
language to many. However, how can two people or two companies do
business, negotiate, discuss terms, prepare and defend arguments in
two distinct languages?

To that end, it is partially the responsibility of the company to hire
and adequately train those who are qualified to effectively operate
within a position; and in many cases this includes being able to
communicate in a certain language. In this global economy, it is also
the responsibility of an individual to seek opportunities to train
themselves to be more culturally sensitive and aim, at the very least,
towards proficient bilingualism.
Flag Like ReplyReply

Expand »
Guest
 FernCast55  1 day ago

I am curious as to who is implementing these policies. Is this just a
solution posed by the majority who are already comfortable and
confident in their English? Do they speak a second language and have
they ever had to compete with that language as their sole means of
succeeding?
An analogous situation would be driver’s testing being given in
English only. If someone can understand all road signs, why should
they be penalized for not being able to comprehend questions given in
their second language?
Flag Like ReplyReply
Add New Comment
You are commenting as a Guest. Optional: Login below.

   Subscribe to all comments by email

Share on  Share this comment on...  Post as Guest

Loading comments...
Problems loading Disqus?
Leaders' Blindspots Undermine Their Global Language Policies
(Editor's note: This post is part of a six-week blog series on how
leadership might look in the future. The conversations generated by
these posts will help shape the agenda of a symposium on the topic in
June 2010, hosted by HBS's Nitin Nohria, Rakesh Khurana, and Scott
Snook. This week's focus: cultural distinctions and diversity.)
Imagine walking into work tomorrow morning to find the following
email: "To fully become a global company, effective immediately, our
business language will be English. All verbal and written
communication should be conducted in English only." Full stop. If
you're a native English speaker, you may be celebrating. If you're a
nonnative speaker, what's your initial gut reaction? Try: "How am I
going to do this every day?" "My colleagues speak English much better
than I do." "What's going to happen to my career?" "I didn't sign up
for this." "I feel stupid when I speak English." Professionals expect
to progress, not regress, at work. For most, discovering that their
native language can no longer serve as a primary mode of communication
would be, to say the least, disruptive. Such an event has become the
reality for millions of employees around the world. Of course, from a
managerial perspective, unrestricted multilingualism — where verbal
and written communications are generated in multiple languages — is
inefficient. The proliferation of integrated organizational systems,
the need to tightly coordinate work and to serve clients worldwide has
accelerated the move towards the use of English as a lingua franca
(common language) no matter where companies are headquartered. SAP and
Siemens are based in Germany but have mandated English as their
business language; Kone Elevators in Sweden has set English as its
sole mode of business communication. Even Microsoft in Beijing has
implemented English as its business language for its local Chinese
employees. Indeed, the business case for the one global language
policy is indisputable. Yet I've been surprised at the extent to which
leaders of multinational firms neglect a systematic implementation of
these programs. I once asked a leader of a high-profile European
multibillion dollar company how he went about preparing his employees
for the English policy he set two years earlier. He stared at me for a
few seconds and blurted, "We actually never talked about it." Then:
"We made the announcement and never brought it up again." Perhaps this
is an extreme case, but according to my research, most leaders miss
the ripple effects of a one global language policy. A recent study
reported how Siemens unveiled its mandate. The CEO declared English as
the official business language to promote cross-unit efficiency and
renamed units to their English word equivalents, but did little else
to socialize employees to the new rule. Failing to follow through can
have a significant impact on employee morale, professional identities,
and overall productivity — and they decrease efficiency, which is
ironic given their intent. Many nonnative speakers lose a great deal
of latitude in their communication ability, and, by extension, their
professional capacity. They fear being viewed as incompetent. Some
feverishly rehearse oral presentations before publicly presenting
their arguments, or defer to the most fluent speakers when presenting
in front of managers. As a result, they don't bring themselves fully
to their work. In response, leaders need to publicly destigmatize
language challenges. Granted many lingua franca companies do provide
English and cross-cultural training, but those won't allay workers'
fears about their daily work, sense of job security, and future career
prospects. Instead, companies should institute a full-out campaign
empowering nonnative speakers, and confirming that their contributions
are valued and their capabilities are respected. They should take
great care in creating an environment where employees can embrace the
mandate with relative ease. After all, language is social, emotional,
and intellectual, the source of identity and power and the most
fundamental source of human interaction. A one-language directive is
likely the most important policy that multinationals can institute for
their globalizing companies. But the policy is the beginning, not the
end, of leadership challenges posed by global communication. Helping
employees see the one English global language policy as an opportunity
for personal growth rather than professional failure is the vital
first step. Tsedal Neeley is an Assistant Professor in the
Organizational Behavior area at Harvard Business School. (Editor's
note: This post is part of a six-week blog series on how leadership
might look in the future. The conversations generated by these posts
will help shape the agenda of a symposium on the topic in June 2010,
hosted by HBS's Nitin Nohria, Rakesh Khurana, and Scott Snook. This
week's focus: cultural distinctions and diversity.)
Posting Guidelines

The editors
http://blogs.hbr.org/imagining-the-future-of-leadership/2010/05/leaders-blindspots-undermine-t.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list