from the need of an international board of directors and top management in an MNC to run .... place in French; in Thailand, we held interviews in French or English, using a translator when necessary. The objective of ..... Chef de secteur. MBE.
LEVERAGING COMMON LANGUAGE IN THE WORKPLACE: A CASE STUDY EVIDENCE FROM A FRANCO-ASIAN SME
Andrès Davila ESCE Business School Sébastien Point EM Strasbourg Business School Nils Myszkowski PACE University
Abstract Communication problems are a prevalent issue in international business. While language is a means of ensuring coordination among various company units, using the same language without company-specific features is not enough to ensure effective communication. Using a case study of an international (French-Asia) trading firm, we define what it means to establish a companyspecific common language. We found that comprehension and use of this language are dependent on position in the company, native language, and seniority in the company. The establishment and diffusion of this company-specific language is an important stage of adaptation to the company and allows management to, for example, better target training programs.
Keywords: common language; internationalisation; SME; cross-cultural communication
1
LEVERAGING COMMON LANGUAGE IN THE WORKPLACE: A CASE STUDY EVIDENCE FROM A FRANCO-ASIAN SMES
INTRODUCTION Over the last decade, research in international business has shown a renewed interest in how language is used in multinational corporations (van den Born & Peltokorpi, 2010; Feely & Harzing, 2003; Harzing et al., 2011; Harzing & Pudelko, 2013; Lauring & Klitmøller, 2015; Peltokorpi, 2015; Piekkari et al., 2005; Zander et al., 2011). Language is presented as an essential aspect of coordination and as a competitive advantage for companies (Griffith, 2002; Spinks & Wells, 1997). Although language has recently become its own subfield in international management (Brannen et al., 2014), it has received very little attention in the field of human resources management. Often considered a “forgotten dimension” in organizations (Girin, 1990; Marschan et al., 1997), language nonetheless affects several crucial aspects of human resources such as recruitment, training, and expatriation ( Feely & Harzing, 2003, Marschan et al., 1997; Marschan-Piekkari, 1999a) and remains the sine qua non for acquiring institutional knowledge (Peltokorpi, 2015; Welch & Welch, 2008). However, one of the difficulties faced by any international company is managing the various languages spoken within its different offices (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Fredriksson et al., 2006; Kulkarni, 2015). In order to facilitate coordination, diffuse institutional knowledge, and reduce communication problems, multinationals have the possibility of establishing a common language (Luo & Shenkar, 2006). A common corporate language is defined as “an administrative managerial tool that is derived from the need of an international board of directors and top management in an MNC to run global operations” (Fredriksson et al., 2006: 409), and depicted as “language standardization” (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a). The idea of a common language often appears in the context
2
of one language chosen as the working language in international business (Fredriksson et al., 2006); this lingua franca, generally English, is seen as useful and prestigious and thus shared and used by company employees (Crystal, 1998; Ehrenreich, 2010; Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010; Piekkari et al., 2005). In this paper, the concept of “common language” encompasses the concept of “jargon”. Some firms use a corporate language that is very context-specific that makes them being “trapped” by their own jargon, i.e. being hostage to their context specific jargon (Brannen & Doz, 2012) whatever language they use. However, a few research tend to study the construction of a common language, i.e. when the common language, often constructed by one unit, need to be “de-contextualize” to be understood in other international units. More importantly, despite a vast literature in workplace communication, most research focus on language barriers rather than on the construction of a common language beyond cultural differences as a mean to build a better communication and cooperation. Even more importantly, a few studies concentrate on SMEs (Small and Medium Entreprises). This is unfortunate since some of the most common difficulties within international SMEs are in the area of internal or external communication, (Irrmann, 2006). Our objective is to offer an “emic” analysis, or one from the company perspective, along the lines of Brannen et al. (2014), rather than reducing language to the simple problem of the linguistic barrier (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Harzing et al., 2011; Lauring & Klitmøller, 2015) related to cultural distance (Luo & Shenkar, 2006). In this paper, we examine the establishment of a common company-specific language in an international SME, where corporate language is challenged to become a common frame of reference or an official language used by all company members as well as a system of jargon and technical and company-specific terms (Brannen & Doz, 2012). Our research question also explores to what extent a small and internationalized company can overcome language barriers by establishing a company-specific language. The
3
literature review is presented in section 1. In a following section, we present our case study of a small Franco-Asian trading company on which our analysis is based. In a third section, we present our results, which we discuss in a fourth and final section.
LITERATURE REVIEW The idea of a common language or idiom can raise the issue of the division used in structural linguistics of langue, an abstract linguistic system, and language, the language that is actually spoken. De Saussure (1916) posits that the abstract system, a socially accepted system of signs that refer to ideas, is only one part of a language, a social act that can take on multiple forms. Most of the literature on common language, in fact, tends to ignore the social and contextual aspects of language and focus on the structural aspects. The challenges of multilingual environments In international companies, employees interact through their cultural and linguistic filters (Von Glinow et al., 2004). The linguistic problems inherent to companies that expand internationally can disrupt not only the dissemination of directives from corporate headquarters, but also local communication and even the value added of the subsidiaries (Luo & Shenkar, 2006). Therefore, the literature emphasizes the necessity of managing the linguistic diversity of large multinational companies (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Fredriksson et al., 2006; Kulkarni, 2015; Luo & Shenkar, 2006) . This diversity often causes language barriers (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Harzing & Feely, 2008; Harzing et al., 2011; Lauring & Klitmøller, 2015) ; consequently, most studies in this field concentrate on improving communication in the intercultural context (Griffith, 2002; Spinks & Wells, 1997). In order to minimize the negative effects of the multitude of languages used within an international company, one of the solutions is to establish an official language policy (Marschan et al., 1997) that states which language(s) will be used in company documents or in daily work
4
situations (Harzing et al., 2011; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999b); these choices are generally made as part of corporate strategy (van den Born & Peltokorpi, 2010; Luo & Shenkar, 2006; Marschan et al., 1997) and generally involve the use of English, which has been recognized as the predominant international business language (Crystal, 1998; Harzing & Pudelko, 2013). For example, multinationals headquartered in English-speaking countries as well as Scandinavian countries, Germany, and Japan tend to use English “by default” (Fredriksson et al., 2006; Harzing et al., 2011). Language barriers remain the core issue in the literature on official corporate language in multinational companies with a multilingual staff (Harzing et al., 2011; Lauring & Klitmøller, 2015). Establishing an official language allows corporate leadership to clearly analyze and supervise activities in its foreign offices, minimize potential problems due to poor communication, provide improved access to company documents (instructions, manuals, etc.), help various offices communicate with each other, and reinforce corporate culture (Luo & Shenkar, 2006; Marschan-Piekkari, 1999b). An unclear policy on the official workplace language can have a negative impact on coordination and thus on company performance (Griffith, 2002). Supporters and opponents of an official workplace language have carried on a lively debate in the literature because there are real difficulties in enforcing and standardizing a language (Fredriksson et al., 2006). This choice of a lingua franca can also have consequences, affecting not only on the relations between headquarters and foreign offices (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Harzing & Pudelko, 2013; Marschan et al., 1997; Marschan-Piekkari, 1999a, 1999b), but also on relations between management and employees (Charles, 2007; Ehrenreich, 2010). Beyond linguistic differences to contextual differences Although language use is often seen in the literature as a strategic element in international business (Marschan et al., 1997; Spinks & Wells, 1997), it is often simplified as consisting of
5
merely language skills and the acquisition of cross-cultural competencies (Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006). For example, the Finnish company Kone prizes language skills, especially in English, as empowering (Marschan-Piekkari, 1999b). English has thus become a high-demand skill in recruitment, and employees are encouraged to improve or perfect their English through company training (Marschan-Piekkari, 1999a). Cross-cultural competence, seen in verbal and nonverbal communication as well as behaviour and communication norms, is also perceived as a key skill (Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006). Therefore, language and culture are inextricably bound: people tend to think and behave according to the language they use (Ralston et al., 1995). Therefore, language as a means of a shared point of reference cannot be boiled down to the simple use of an “official language” in a company. Even when there is an official workplace language meant to facilitate communication, employees will still use their native languages in informal situations (Lauring & Selmer, 2010). Anderson and Rasmussen (2004) arguethat the choice of language has no real effect because there will always be communication problems between the HQ and its subsidiaries, or between the company and its clients, due to context as much as to language: Contextualized language is above all a social act that creates a shared frame of reference. A company-specific language is built collectively over time from words, acronyms, and stories specific to the company’s location and characteristics (Brannen & Doz, 2012). Chao et al. (1994) find that mastering the language system promulgated by the company in the form of jargon or technical terms is part of assimilating into the company. Language is a powerful socializing instrument (Sapir, 1968): Through daily use of company-specific words, phrases, acronyms, or narratives, employees acquire the language and make it their own. Learning a common workplace language could be also compared to learning an artificial language with a limited vocabulary and simple grammatical structures (Dominey, 2000; Friederici, Steinhauer & Pfeifer, 2002). However, this language can be difficult to understand
6
for those outside the company (Brannen & Doz, 2012). Based on this argument, we assume that establishing a common workplace language is necessary for a company that is expanding abroad, but there is more to this than just declaring an official company language. Without linguistic features specific to the company that create this common workplace language, communication problems will persist, even if a lingua franca like English is used. Because a workplace language contains so much contextual and company information, it becomes an integral part of an employee’s skill set (Piekkari, 2008). However, in order for this kind of language to gain legitimacy and coherence, it needs to be constructed by consensus so that it can then become available to all actors in the firm. To this point, a common workplace language needs to meet the following pedagogical considerations: 1) As in the case of the acquisition of any language, it can be assumed that a mental lexicon needs to be developed that includes not only lexico-semantic data but also syntactic, orthographic, phonological, and morphological data related to the words used (Levelt, 1989). While there is an intrinsic mental lexicon in all natural languages, this lexicon needs to be precisely defined in the case of a language specific to a particular domain such as a professional field or a corporation. 2) The acquisition of this mental lexicon should be able to take place though a simple repeated association of the word and the concept it represents. (Kersten, 2010). Besides being able to understand the meaning of the word, users must also acquire its sound and pronunciation (its phonological representation): All users of the common language must be able to pronounce its lexicon clearly enough to be understood within all branches of the firm.
METHODS Data collection
7
This exploratory study is based on data collected within an international SME controlled by a holding company and composed of 7 units with a total of 30 employees from 7 countries (12 French, 12 Thai, 2 Vietnamese, 1 Algerian, 1 Chinese, 1 Iranese, 1 Laosian). The company’s core business is the import of Asian food items to France. Our case study therefore sheds light on the substantial cultural and linguistic differences between France and two Asian countries, Thailand and Vietnam. We acknowledge the fact that l Nevertheless the focus of our study is not to analyse linguistic or cultural differences but to understand how built common language is known and used within an international and multicultural organization. Thus, our research methodology combines ethnography (Hammersley, 1992), specifically, multi-sited ethnography (Marcus, 1995 ; Falzon, 2009 ; Lauring & Klitmøller, 2015), with the participant observer method (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994). We carried out 20 interviews (with all of the staff involved in import activities between Asia and France at the time of the study) as well as participant observations over a nine-month period. One of the authors worked as manager in one of the purchasing offices and thus conducted the interviews as a participant observer; the experience allowed him to experience first-hand the company’s communication and coordination difficulties. By using the participant observation method (Hammersley, 1992), we were able to maintain a long-term and consistent observation of our research subjects; this gave us access to information only available to an insider. These semi-structured interviews of 45 minutes to an hour took place first in France (for the French employees) and then in Thailand for the Chinese, Thai, and Vietnamese employees (see Table 1). The interviews in France took place in French; in Thailand, we held interviews in French or English, using a translator when necessary. The objective of these interviews was to identify the major themes of communication difficulties among employees and between offices. Conducting the interviews in different sites allowed us to extend our ethnographic study within one site by following it to the other sites over a short period (Marcus, 1995). This approach not only gave us a local perspective but also
8
highlighted the international aspect of the phenomenon we are studying (Lauring & Klitmøller, 2015).
Unit Holding France (import/export) France (restaurant) Thailand (purchasing) Thailand (agricultural products) China (purchasing) Vietnam (purchasing) TOTAL
Number of people
Number interviewed
2 8
2 8
% coverage 100% 100%
7 4
2 4
28% 100%
3
1
33%
2 2
1 2
50% 100%
28
20
72%
Table 1: Number of interviews carried out by unit in the SME under study Given the inherent cultural differences in our sample, we spent a good deal of time listening to and observing behaviour within this small company. The data we collected from all of these sources was then triangulated and processed (Yin, 1989). In the second phase, we worked with all the employees we had interviewed to create a lexicon that could be seen as the basis of a common workplace language. We asked each employee to provide us with eight words or phrases that they saw as specific to the company. Creating the lexicon of a company-specific language Following these interviews, we worked with all the employees we had interviewed to create a lexicon that could become the basis of a company-specific language. We asked each employee to provide us with eight words or phrases that they saw as specific to the companyWe first identified the terms by asking each employee for the terms they use to describe concepts, tools, or methods used on a daily basis at the workplace. We then classified the words and phrases as terms, methods, or tools. We gathered 155 different words and phrases, including: 9
-
73 words, abbreviations, and concepts (i.e. BFR, CAD, cash & carry, DLC, DLUO, Gencod, ISO, promotion, ROC);
-
71 terms related to documentary or IT tools (i.e. Skype, webmail, Yahoo Messenger);
-
11 terms related to work methods (i.e., benchmarking, DESC, merchandising, SWOT, VMH).
This list is by no means exhaustive but is nonetheless representative of a language specific to this company. Creating this list allowed us to identify the terms that are understood and accepted by all of the company’s employees.
Quantitative data analysis We then asked the employees whether they knew and/or used each of the 155 terms on the aforementioned list, using a dichotomous yes-no response format. We tested the effect of employee seniority, native language, education level, and hierarchical position on the knowledge and use of each term. Because the outcome variables of knowing and using each term were binary, we modeled the probability to know - or use - the terms using (multilevel, as later explained) binary logistic regressions. There were 3255 observations of knowledge and 3255 observations of use (21 participants in this stage times 155 terms). We accounted for the fact that the 155 observations per participant were not independent – as they all are the responses of the same employee – by controlling for the random-intercept effect of the participant in the regression models. For this purpose, we used the R package lme4 (Bates, Maechler, Bolker & Walker, 2015), as it allows to perform Multilevel Generalized Linear Multilevel Models (MGLM), which multilevel binary logistic regressions are a case of. Effects were significance tested using likelihood ratio tests (Snijders & Bosker, 2011).
10
RESULTS Employee interviews The interviews1 we conducted in this small international business uncovered problems related to communication and coordination, which seem to be caused primarily by language and cultural barriers. The company does not have an official language (lingua franca) but offers lessons in the languages used in the company (French and English) to its employees: several of the employees have in fact taken six months to two years of language lessons in France or Asia. Despite these language-learning efforts, language differences in the company seem to remain problematic for the employees: “Sometimes our Thailand office doesn’t ask enough questions. For example, there’s a shipment of drinks that’s on its way, but I don’t think anyone informed me of this. But it’s also a language problem. If we spoke the same language, I’d have more information about shipments” (MG – procurement and customer service, France office, French nationality, 26 years old). Many long-term company employees are becoming bicultural and speak a Western language as well as an Asian one. However, the relatively weak English level among employees remains a source of misunderstanding. “Sometimes my colleague and I have trouble understanding each other. She speaks Thai English and I speak French English” (CM – quality manager, France office, French nationality, 26 years old). “There’s a gap between the France and the Asia offices. We talk to each other, but we don’t always understand each other” (SD – CFO, France office, French nationality, 38 years old).
1
The interviews were conducted in French and English and are all translated into English.
11
Oddly enough, there are sometimes communication, consultation, and coordination problems among colleagues who speak the same language fluently. This makes it evident that a companyspecific language can be useful to facilitate communication between offices and individuals, whether or not they share the same language and culture: “The lack of communication among people who are supposed to work together leads to loss of information and thus potential problems” (HC, purchasing and corporate quality manager, all the Asian offices, French/Laotian nationality, 32 years old). “I don’t know what’s going on in terms of products or retail: we just don’t communicate” (ST – Thailand office manager and Asia director, Thailand office, Thai nationality, 35 years old). “I’m not familiar with some of our products; information just doesn’t circulate smoothly. For example, I just found out about a top-selling product in Thailand that I hadn’t heard of before” (ES – CEO and sales director, France office, French nationality, 44 years old). “In terms of communications, there have been some marketing failures because of labeling” (SC – Marketing manager, China office, French nationality, 28 years old). Besides the issue of linguistic diversity within the company, the most important French/Asian cultural difference that appeared in our interviews was the concept of time, which can lead to communication problems. “The Asians don’t know what deadlines mean” (MG – procurement and customer service, France office, French nationality, 26 years old).
12
“Our France and Asia offices only have four working hours in common, none of which are spent exchanging information” (CM – quality manager, France office, French nationality, 26 years old). “There’s not a specific time where we can all synchronize and share the same information” (BN – quality and back office manager, Vietnam office, Vietnamese nationality, 32 years old). “Sometimes I ask for information, and I don’t know why, but I don’t get a response; I don’t even get a timeframe for when I might get an answer” (ST – Thailand office manager and Asia director, Thailand office, Thai nationality, 35 years old).
This lag in the sense of time can create a feeling of disconnect between the France and Thailand offices: “The France office has no idea what we do in the Thailand office” (ST – Thailand office manager and Asia director, Thailand office, Thai nationality, 35 years old). “We just don’t have the same culture” (SD – CFO, France office, French nationality, 38 years old). We noted during our observation that this international company has two sets of leaders: one in France, and the other in Asia. Thus it is essential that communication, consultation, and coordination be effective: the means of communication should allow information and directives to be clearly transmitted. However, our interviews point to communication difficulties due to geographical distance, language barriers, and cultural differences. We presented these issues to company executives, and a company-specific language was coconstructed in order to solve these communication problems. The executives then decided to
13
distribute company-wide a handbook containing a glossary of all the terminological units we collected: “The Management Handbook is a guide where you can find all the information you need about the processes, platforms, and terms used in this company.[…]Listening and keeping an open mind will help you find your place in this multicultural company, where we believe in respecting the personalities of the people who make up this company. We are making this company-wide handbook available to you to help you adapt to the company more quickly. Everyone who works for a company understands it differently, but that does not negate the possibility of creating a mutually acceptable company-specific language that you can use for negotiating and finding solutions” (ES – CEO and sales director, France office, French nationality, 44 years old; and RP, company founder, France and Thailand office, French nationality, 44 years old). Quantitative analysis of the knowledge and use of terminological units Our collection of words and phrases from the employee survey shows a good general recognition of these terms: 78% of them are familiar to at least half of the staff, and half of the terms are familiar to at least 75% of the staff, while 13% of the terms are familiar to the whole staff. In terms of use, 60% of the terms are used by at least half of the staff; 20% are used by at least 75% of the staff. Figure 1 shows the trends in recognition and use of each of the terminological units in the small international company we are studying.
14
Budget CBL FOBBL ETA DLUOSkype PromotionCatalogue produit Certificat d'origine LC Logistique PO Shedule Yahoo BTD WS flow team report DHL Meeting Business Plan HACCPCash messenger ISO MTR Fowarder Numéro de lot Shelve life IN/OUT Incoterm Merchandising Activity plan CIF/CNF Code article Formation NADIRE 90% T/T Reporting Cash & carry Income MMRCode barre SO Gencod Article Retroplanning AMM Mix marketing Cotation GD 80% Bilan Délai de Approvisionneme 1er prixBenchmar nt NAC Chef de secteurQCM Tarif général SWOT Fiche de C DLC 70% Chef de rayon BannetteMDD CA MBE Compte d'exploitation RHF RHD MD CP Gamme CDI Reporting BFR Circuit court 60% Escompte terms (18%) GMP DN PR SHP formCi-Pi 96 terms (62%) Lettre de relâche VMH Fiche de dépotage CGV 50% CAD
100%
Recognized & Little used 28
Rate of use 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
CGA CAHT Coop. arrière
3 net FPC PASINTEX PA TNB
FLC
Recognized & used
FTC50%
CLI
SOP
RCAI 2C
EDAC
DEB DESC
DV FDV FOP
70%
80%
90%
100%
40%
Little recognized30% & little used 20% TMP
60%
FLG
Little recognized & used
10%
31 terms (20%) 0%
Rate of recognition
Figure 1: Terminological units by employee recognition and use
The most frequently used vocabulary items are related to the company’s core business, import/export of Asian food products: international business, incoterms, international norms, ISO, HACCP, IFS, etc. The language system that is most often used is thus contextual because it is based on this core business: the evidence for this are the many terminological units in the form of abbreviations and acronyms that make up the company’s jargon, no matter what language is being spoken. More specifically, the terms are related to three main themes in the company (see Table 2): 1) Transportation and logistics (logistics and purchasing terms); 2) the roles and duties of each actor in the company (management terms); 3) the communication tools used to exchange information among the various international units (communication terms). Most of the abbreviations and concepts are management terms, while most of the tools and platforms are related to the areas of logistics and communication. In fact, the platforms and
15
tools that are most used by the entire staff are free messaging services and the internal document sharing platform.
No. of terms collected No. of English words2 No. of French words Tools/ platforms Work procedures Abbreviations / concepts
Logistics and Purchasing Terms Total Known Used 56 71% 59% (36%) 24 63% 14% (15%) 26 57% 11% (17%) 28 51% 13% (18%)
Management Terms
Communication Terms
Total 71 (46%) 19 (12%) 44 (28%) 18 (12%)
Known
Used
66%
49%
79%
59%
58%
42%
81%
65%
-
-
-
9 (6%)
56%
41%
28 (18%)
68%
11%
44 (28%)
61%
44%
Total 28 (18%) 9 (6%) 14 (9%) 25 (16%) 2 (1%) 1 (1%)
Known
Used
76%
64%
86%
71%
67%
53%
79%
66%
47%
47%
78%
67%
Table 2 : Logistics, management, and communication terms in the glossary with percentages of recognition and use
It can be seen that the most recognized and used words are those linked to communication, followed by logistics and management, although the difference in terms of terminological units is not substantial (cf. Tables 2 and 3).
Differences between logistics and management Known 5% -2% 10% 18% -56% -17%
Used 10% 4% 15% 24% -41% -14%
Differences between logistics and communication Known -5% -9% 1% 1% -47% -15%
Used -5% -8% 4% 1% -47% -15%
Differences between management and communication Known -10% -7% -9% -17% 9% 2%
Used -15% -12% -11% -23% -6% -1%
Table 3: Differences in knowledge and use by term category 2
We counted 54% French words and 34% English words. 6% of the words are universal: they aren’t specific to
French or English. 6% of the words could not be categorized.
16
There is an approximately equivalent number of French and English words in the management handbook glossary, with the exception of the management vocabulary, which is primarily in French, the language of corporate headquarters. While the glossary mixes English and French terms, this company-specific language includes none of the Asian languages spoken within the company. However, several of the terms in the glossary have multiple meanings that stem from a French or Asian cultural context3. Nevertheless, all of the company employees are able to determine the meaning of the acronym from its context and the speaker. Many words are part of both French and English and are used in both the France and Asia offices. These universal words make up 5.81% of the lexicon. English words make up 34% of the lexicon, and French words are the majority at 54% (see Table 4). Of all the terms collected, 53 are abbreviations that can only be understood in a specific context.
No. of words
Known
Used
French words
84 (54%)
58 (69%)
45 (53%)
English words
53 (34%)
37 (70%)
29 (55%)
Unspecified words
9 (6%)
6 (69%)
5 (55%)
English/French words
9 (6%)
6 (69%)
5 (55%)
Table 4: Terminological units by language Experience in the company is another factor in whether an employee will know and use the company-specific language. In fact, seniority and education level also had significant effects (p5 Seniority
