Global Business Communicates in English:
English is now the global business language, whether you like it or not. To facilitate communication and performance across geographically diverse functions and business endeavours, an increasing number of multinational companies, including Airbus, Daimler-Chrysler, Fast Retailing, Nokia, Renault, Samsung, SAP, Technicolor, and Microsoft in Beijing, are mandating English as the common corporate language.
Adopting a common mode of speech isn't just a good idea; it's a requirement, even for an American company with overseas operations, or a French company with a focus on domestic customers. Consider a meeting of a group of salespeople from a company's Paris headquarters. Why should you care if they could all communicate in English? Consider the following scenario: the same group makes a sales call to a company based in Paris, unaware that the potential customer will be bringing in employees from other locations who do not speak French. This happened at one of the companies where I worked. Employees from those two French companies couldn't close a deal in Paris because the people in the room couldn't communicate. It was a rude awakening, and the company quickly adopted an English corporate language strategy.
Japan's largest online marketplace—to mandate English as the company's official language of business in March 2010. The company's goal was to become the world's leading provider of internet services, and Mikitani believed that the new policy, which would affect approximately 7,100 Japanese employees, was critical to achieving that goal, especially given the company's focus on expansion outside of Japan. He also felt responsible for helping his country, a conservative island nation, develop a broader worldview.
The multibillion-dollar company—a cross between Amazon.com and eBay—was on a roll, having acquired PriceMinister.com in France, Buy.com and FreeCause in the United States, Play.com in the United Kingdom, Tradoria in Germany, and Kobo eBooks in Canada, as well as establishing joint ventures with major companies in China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Brazil. Mikitani, who was serious about the language change, announced the plan to employees in English rather than Japanese. The Japanese language cafeteria menus and elevator directories were replaced overnight. He also stated that employees would be required to demonstrate competence on an international English scoring system within two years or risk being demoted or even fired.
The story was quickly picked up by the media, and corporate Japan reacted with fascination and disdain. Takanobu Ito, Honda's CEO, stated publicly, "It's stupid for a Japanese company to only use English in Japan when the workforce is primarily Japanese." But Mikitani was certain it was the right decision, and the policy is bearing fruit. Mikitani has been able to build a remarkably diverse and powerful organisation thanks to the English mandate. Today, three of his engineering organization's six senior executives are not Japanese; they don't even speak Japanese. The company is still actively seeking the best talent from around the world. Rakuten's Japanese employees can now adequately engage in internal communication in English, and 25% regularly communicate in English with partners and coworkers in foreign subsidiaries.
Adopting a global language policy is not easy, and businesses frequently make mistakes along the way. It's radical, and it's almost certain to face stiff opposition from employees. Many people may feel at a disadvantage if their English isn't as good as others'; team dynamics and performance may suffer as a result, and national pride may interfere. However, in order to survive and thrive in a global economy, businesses must overcome language barriers—and English will almost always be the common ground, at least for the time being.
English, the fastest-spreading language in human history, is spoken at a useful level by approximately 1.75 billion people worldwide—one in every four of us. There are approximately 385 million native speakers in countries such as the United States and Australia, approximately a billion fluent speakers in formerly colonised countries such as India and Nigeria, and millions of people worldwide who have studied it as a second language. It is used by an estimated 565 million people on the internet.
The benefits of "Englishnization," as Mikitani refers to it, are significant; however, only a few companies have successfully implemented an English-language policy. I've developed an adoption framework to guide companies in their language efforts based on my research and work with companies over the last decade. There is still much to learn, but there are success stories. Adopters will reap significant benefits.
Why only English?
There is no doubt that unrestricted multilingualism is inefficient and can obstruct important interactions and the achievement of key goals. The need to closely coordinate tasks and collaborate with customers and partners all over the world has accelerated the shift toward English as the official language of business, regardless of where companies are headquartered.
~Three major factors are driving the shift to English as a corporate standard.
1) Pressure from competitors:
You must be able to communicate with a wide range of customers, suppliers, and other business partners if you want to buy or sell. They might share your native language if you're lucky, but don't count on it. Companies that fail to develop a language strategy effectively limit their growth opportunities to markets where their language is spoken, clearly putting them at a competitive disadvantage to competitors who have adopted English-only policies.
2) Task and resource globalisation:
When geographically dispersed employees must collaborate to meet corporate goals, language differences can create a bottleneck—a Tower of Babel, if you will. An employee in Belgium may require input from a company in Beirut or Mexico. Communication will suffer if there is no common ground. Better language comprehension provides employees with more firsthand information, which is critical for making sound decisions. Nestlé, the Swiss food giant, saw significant efficiency gains in purchasing and hiring as a result of its adoption of English as a company standard.
3) Integration of M&A across national borders:
Negotiating a merger or acquisition is difficult enough when everyone speaks the same language. However, nuances are easily lost when they do not, even in simple e-mail exchanges. Cross-cultural integration is also notoriously difficult; thus, when Germany's Hoechst and France's Rhône-Poulenc merged in 1998 to form Aventis, the world's fifth largest pharmaceutical company, the new company chose English as its operating language over French or German to avoid favouritism. A branding element may also be present. Merloni, a relatively unknown midsize Italian appliance maker, adopted English in the 1990s to improve its international image, giving it an advantage when acquiring Russian and British companies.
"English, the fastest-spreading language in human history, is spoken at a useful level by approximately 1.75 billion people worldwide—one in every four of us."
Impediments to Effective English-Language Policies:
To be sure, one-language policies can have a negative impact on efficiency. Evidence from my Rakuten research, as well as a study I conducted with Pamela Hinds of Stanford University and Catherine Cramton of George Mason University at a company I'll call GlobalTech and a study I conducted at a company I'll call FrenchCo, reveal the costs that global English-language rules can impose. Proper implementation reduces risks, but even the best-laid plans can fail. Here are a few examples of the most common.
Change is always unexpected:
No amount of forewarning or preparation can completely mitigate the psychological impact on employees when a proposed change becomes a reality. Marie (all names in this article have been changed except for Mikitani and Ito) was ecstatic when she first learned of FrenchCo's English-only policy. She had been communicating with non-French partners in English for some time, and she saw the proposed policy as a sign that the company was becoming more international. That is, until she attended a routine meeting in French, which was normally held in English. "I didn't realise the first meeting after the rule was announced would be in English." "It was a surprise," Marie says. She recalls entering the meeting with vigor—until she noticed the translator headsets.
Comments
Post a Comment