Business communication and language policy: What is critical?

This mini-symposium brings together four international experts in the fields of business communication and language policy. The four speakers will each give us their perspective on the cross-over field of business communication and language policy with a specific focus on critical issues – in both senses of the word. Topics include the role of English in business communication, approaches to translation as well as the role of multilingualism in international organisations.

Programme:

Participation in the symposium is free of charge. Everyone is welcome. For more information, please contact Dorte Lønsmann (dl.ibc@cbs.dk).

The speakers:
Rebecca Piekkari is Professor of International Business at Aalto University, School of Business in Finland. Her research focuses on language in international business and the use of qualitative methods in management and organizational research. She has also participated in the discussion about language as a methodological question. Her work has been published in journals such as the Academy of Management Review, Journal of Management Studies, and Journal of International Business Studies as well as in several handbooks in the area.

Susanne Tietze, PhD, is Professor of International Management at Keele Management School, Keele University, UK. Her current research focus is on the use of languages in international work contexts; specifically she has investigated the use of English as the dominant language in (management) scholarship and she is currently integrating theoretical  approaches from translation studies into her work.   She has recently co-edited (with Holden and Michaelova) the Routledge Companion to Cross Cultural Management with a view to open a new trajectory for cross-cultural, cross-language research, pedagogy and practice.

Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen earned his PhD in 2003 from the Department of Management and Organisation at Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki, which remains his main scholarly affiliation besides his administrative duties. He also holds an adjunct professorship (docentur) in international business at Aalto University School of Business. His research centers on the interplay between language, culture and knowledge sharing in multinational corporations. Wille has striven to advance the understanding of these issues by publishing journal articles and consultancy reports (for more info on his publications, please see www.researchgate.net/profile/Wilhelm-Barner-Rasmussen/publications), as well as by co-convening a series of interdisciplinary workshops and conference tracks together with different colleagues.

Robert Phillipson is Professor Emeritus at CBS. His books on language policy, linguistic imperialism, language rights, and EU language policies have been published in twelve countries. He was awarded the UNESCO Linguapax prize in 2010. His keynote lecture “The business of English, global panacea or pandemic? Myths and realities of ‘Global' English” was given at the International Workshop on Management & Language in Helsinki in June 2015.  For details of CV and publications, see Robert Philippson’s website.

Abstracts:

Robert Phillipson, How critical is English in business communication?
The expansion of English worldwide tends to be both seen and marketed uncritically, as a universally relevant lingua franca. Imperial languages are promoted by means of linguicism, which many contemporary policies exemplify. The post-1945 expansion of English was a deliberate policy of the US and UK governments, foreseen in a speech by Churchill.  Elsewhere Churchill endorsed university academic freedom and autonomy, which neoliberal forces currently constrain. Increased use of English results in a tension between national linguistic capital accumulation and dispossession. European colonisation was legitimated by the fraudulent myth of terra nullius. Americanisation worldwide is furthered by projecting US norms and lifestyle as a cultura nullius. English is marketed as a lingua nullius, as though English is a universal ‘basic skill’. This is false argumentation that echoes colonial discourse. Privileging English intensifies the gaps between the world’s haves and have-nots. Critical scholarship at the macro-level dovetails with micro-level analysis of the conceptual myth-making promoting global English.

See also  Robert Phillipson, The business of English, global panacea or pandemic? Myths and realities of ‘Global' English

Susanne Tietze, Management Scholarship: English-only Language Policy and Practices?
In this talk I will focus on the role of English as the dominant language of management & business scholarship in terms of the publication policies of management journals and also in the practices as visible at conferences, symposia and academic discourse.  While any multilingual knowledge community needs a shared ‘communication tool’ to ensure mutual intelligibility, the status of English as a ‘dominant’ tool has got consequences  affecting both the bodies of available management knowledge as well as   the careers and well-being of management scholars. In concluding I propose some alternative practices about how to ‘break open’ the hegemonic status of English in management scholarship.

Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen, How individuals in multinationals cope (or do not cope) with language policies (or the lack thereof)
My talk will be based partly on my work on how Finland-based firms use Swedish in their communication, and partly on our recent research on the roles played by 'boundary spanners' in interunit multinational corporations.

Rebecca Piekkari, The limits of a common corporate language and language policy
Japanese MNCs have commonly followed the language policy of employing Japanese when interacting with their overseas transplants. They have been criticized by Westerners for their ethnocentric approach (Perlmutter, 1969) in managing foreign operations through the Japanese language and Japanese expatriates (cf. recent changes when Japanese MNCs have adopted English, Neeley and Dumas in press).

In the 1980s and 90s, Japanese MNCs successfully transferred and translated their organizational systems and ways of working to their manufacturing units ie. transplants in the US and Western Europe. The one-way interaction from the Japanese HQ to the overseas transplants was dense and intensive. However, a reassessment of the Japanese experience from a language perspective shows that the Japanese MNCs did not have a widely shared common language with the receiving end of their organizational practices. In this transfer and translation process, they relied on Japanese expatriates who were deeply indoctrinated into the home country way of working due to their long tenure and cultural understanding. These expatriates, who lacked fluency in English and foreign work experience but possessed high levels of cultural and organizational knowledge, interacted with the locals (see Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014). Some of the locals were sent to Japan for short-term training. They often possessed the necessary language skills but not the cultural skills. 

So based on the Japanese experience, what is critical in business communication and language policy?

The Japanese experience draws attention to the critical role of the translators – expatriate and locals – to ensure the continued translation of organizational practices and systems (language nodes, bridge individuals and cultural mediators with complementary skills). Had these expatriate translators been quickly replaced by locals, as is often suggested in the IB literature (moving from ethnocentric to polycentric staffing policy, Perlmutter 1969), the transfer and translation processed would have suffered. Knowledge exchange between expatriates and locals was partly implemented verbally but partly also through demonstration, showing and illustration (Sunaoshi et al., 2005). Japanese firms were able to transfer their practices and organizational systems to the US, however, they were not able to transfer the capacity of continuous improvement and innovation (embedded in the corporate culture and mindset) which can partly be explained by the challenges associated in the translation process. Language skills are important for the most advanced and demanding boundary spanning activities (Barner-Rasmussen et al., 2014). Japanese MNCs engaged in a one-way transfer from HQ to the transplants; the transplants did not develop into sources of new knowledge and R&D. It is worth noting that as the practices were transferred from Japan to the US they continued to evolve in Japan (it was not a status quo which introduced an additional challenge to the transfer process.

The Japanese experience suggests that the notion of a common language is not as critical as typically presented in the IB and business communication literature.