[lg policy] Enforcing a global language policy

Sat May 26 14:56:49 UTC 2012

Enforcing a global language policy

25 May 2012 Harvard Business Review

Ready or not, English is now the global language of business. More and
more multinational companies are mandating English as the common
corporate language, in an attempt to facilitate communication and
performance across geographically diverse functions and business
endeavors.

Hiroshi Mikitani, the CEO of Rakuten – Japan’s largest online
marketplace – mandated in March 2010 that English would be the
company’s official language of business. The company’s goal was to
become the number one internet services company in the world, and
Mikitani believed that the new policy, which would affect some 7,100
Japanese employees, was vital to achieving that end, especially as
expansion plans were concentrated outside Japan.

The multi-billion dollar company was on a growth spree: It had
acquired PriceMinister.com in France, Buy.com and FreeCause in the US,
Play.com in the UK, Tradoria in Germany and Kobo eBooks in Canada, and
established joint ventures with major companies in China, Indonesia,
Taiwan, Thailand and Brazil. Serious about the language change,
Mikitani announced the plan to employees not in Japanese but in
English. Overnight, the Japanese language cafeteria menus were
replaced, as were elevator directories. And he stated that employees
would have to demonstrate competence on an international English
scoring system within two years – or risk demotion or even dismissal.

The media instantly picked up the story, and corporate Japan reacted
with fascination and disdain. But Mikitani was confident that it was
the right move, and the policy is bearing fruit. The English mandate
has allowed Mikitani to create a remarkably diverse and powerful
organization.

Adopting a global language policy is not easy, and companies
invariably stumble along the way. But to survive and thrive in a
global economy, companies must overcome language barriers – and
English, which is spoken at a useful level by some 1.75 billion people
worldwide, will almost always be the common ground.

Why English only?

Three primary reasons are driving the move toward English as a
corporate standard.

Competitive pressure: Companies that fail to devise a language
strategy are essentially limiting their growth opportunities to the
markets where their language is spoken, clearly putting themselves at
a disadvantage to competitors that have adopted English-only policies.

Globalisation of tasks and resources: Language differences can cause a
bottleneck when geographically dispersed employees have to work
together to meet corporate goals. Without common ground, communication
will suffer.

M&A integration across national boundaries: Negotiations regarding a
merger or acquisition are complicated enough when everybody speaks the
same language. But when they don’t, nuances are easily lost, even in
simple email exchanges.

Obstacles to successful English-language policies

To be sure, one-language policies can have repercussions that decrease
efficiency. Proper rollout mitigates the risks, but even
well-considered plans can encounter pitfalls. Here are some of the
most common:

Change always comes as a shock: No amount of warning and preparation
can entirely prevent the psychological blow to employees when proposed
change becomes reality.

Compliance is spotty: At GlobalTech, a technology firm based in
Germany, a service representative named Hans received a frantic call
from his boss when a key customer’s operation ground to a halt as a
result of a software glitch. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were at
stake for both the customer and GlobalTech. Hans quickly placed a call
to the technical department in India, but the software team was unable
to jump on the problem because all communications about it were in
German – despite the English-only policy instituted two years earlier
requiring that all internal communications be carried out in English.
As Hans waited for documents to be translated, the crisis continued to
escalate.

Self-confidence erodes: When nonnative speakers are forced to
communicate in English, they can feel that their worth to the company
has been diminished, regardless of their fluency level. Employees
facing one-language policies often worry that the best jobs will be
offered only to those with strong English skills, regardless of
content expertise.

Job security falters: With adoption of an English-only policy,
employees’ job requirements change – sometimes overnight. That can be
a bitter pill to swallow, especially among top performers.

Performance suffers: The bottom line takes a hit when employees stop
participating in group settings. Once participation ebbs, processes
fall apart.

An adoption framework

Adoption depends on two key factors: employee buy-in and belief in
capacity. Buy-in is the degree to which employees believe that a
single language will produce benefits for them or the organisation.
Belief in their own capacity is the extent to which they are confident
that they can gain enough fluency to pass muster.

Managers can use four strategies to help people boost their belief in
their ability to develop language proficiency:

Offer opportunities to gain experience with language: Whether through
education, employment or living abroad, experience tends to give
people the confidence they need to succeed in this task. Provide
opportunities that open new doors and allow employees to stretch their
skills.

Foster positive attitudes: Attitudes are contagious: People’s faith in
their own capabilities grows when they see others around them having
positive experiences with the radical change. Managers can model good
risk-taking behaviors by showing that they too are trying new things,
making mistakes and learning from them. At Rukuten, Mikitani
encouraged middle managers to constantly improve their own language
skills and to support their subordinates in their efforts to develop
their language proficiency.

Use verbal persuasion: Encouragement and positive reinforcement from
managers and executives make all the difference. Mikitani repeatedly
assured his entire workforce that he would do everything in his power

to help every employee meet his English-proficiency goals.

Encourage good study habits: Companies need to contract with language
vendors who specialise in helping employees at various levels of
proficiency. The vendors should be intimately familiar with the
company context so that they can guide employees’ learning, from how
best to allocate their time in improving skills to strategies for
composing emails in English.

Buy-in and belief go together. Strategies that can help people feel
more confident include:

Messaging, messaging and more messaging: Continual communication from
the CEO, executives and managers is critical. Leaders should stress
the importance of globalization in achieving the company’s mission and
strategy and demonstrate how language supports that.

Internal marketing: Because a language transformation is a multi-year
process, it is crucial to maintain employee buy-in over time.
Rakuten’s intranet regularly features employee success stories with
emphasis on best practices for increasing language competence.

Branding: Managers should encourage people to self-identify as global
rather than local employees. Rakuten instituted an enterprise-wide
social networking site to promote cross-national interactions among
employees.

Mikitani doesn’t fear resistance. He believes, as I do, that you can
counteract it – and ultimately bring about significant transformation
in employees’ beliefs and buy-in. A global language change takes
perseverance and time, but if you want to surpass your rivals, it’s no
longer a matter of choice.

Tsedal Neeley is an assistant professor in the organisational
behaviour unit at Harvard Business School.

http://www.leadingcompany.com.au/strategy/global-business-speaks-english/201205241192

--
**************************************
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