Master’s thesis – Gitte Isagerpure.au.dk/portal/files/8927/Master_s_thesis.docx · Web viewMaster’s thesis. International ... Sociolinguistics is the study of the relationship

English as a corporate lingua franca:

an exploratory study of the strengths and weaknesses of

using English as a corporate language

Master’s thesis

International business communication

Cand.ling.merc. English

Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus

Author: Gitte Isager

Supervisor: Hanne Tange

December 2009

Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager

Preface

---------------------

I firmly believe in two linguistic principles, which some people see as contradictory, but which for me are two sides of the one coin.

I believe in the fundamental value of multilingualism, as an amazing world resource which presents us with different perspectives and insights, and thus enables us to reach a more profound understanding of

the nature of the human mind and spirit.

I believe in the fundamental value of a common language, as an amazing world resource which presents us with unprecedented possibilities for mutual understanding, and thus enables us to find fresh

opportunities for international cooperation.

-------------------------

David Crystal

English as a Global Language (2003)

1


Contents

Page

1. Introduction 41.1. The position of English in Denmark 41.2. Problem statement 6

1.3. Delimitation 71.4. Research approach and method 71.5. Key concepts 7

1.5.1.Corporate language defined 71.5.2.Lingua franca defined 8

1.6. Thesis structure 8

2. Literature review 102.1. The management perspective 10

2.1.1.Language management conceptualised 102.1.2.Language management in practice 12

2.2. The sociolinguistic perspective 162.2.1.Global or local orientation 162.2.2.The role of common sense 162.2.3.Language clustering and thin communication 18

2.3. The linguistic perspective 192.3.1.The status of English as a global language 192.3.2.The influence of English in Denmark 20

2.4. Summary 21

3. Data and methodology 223.1. Company profile 22

3.1.1.The Sustainability department 233.2. Research methodology 23

3.2.1.Data collection 233.2.2.The respondents 253.2.3.The interview guide 253.2.4.Validity 26

2


Page

4. Analysis of data 274.1. English usage 27

4.1.1.Awareness of a corporate language and definition of the concept 274.1.2.The penetration of English 294.1.3.The sophistication of English 29

4.2. English language consistency 304.2.1.Consistency in Sustainability 304.2.2.Consistency in Vestas in general 35

4.3. Proficiency in English 374.3.1.Non-native English speakers’ proficiency 374.3.2.Native English speakers in a non-native English speakers’ environment 394.3.3.Non-native English speakers’ rhetorical skills 40

4.4. Thin communication 414.5. A global language 434.6. Summary 45

5. Discussion 46

6. Conclusion 51

References 53

Appendix 1: Interview guide

Appendix 2: Interview transcripts

Enclosure 1: Extract from Vestas’ English Language Guide

Thesis abstract

Characters: 131,308 (corresponding to 60 normal pages)-

excluding contents, references, appendices, enclosure, and thesis abstract

3


1. Introduction

My interest in the use of English as a corporate language originates from years of being an English language user myself in a multinational and multilingual environment, from an interest in English usage developed during my language and international communication studies, and from the public debate on English usage and the position of English in Denmark.

As a consequence of globalisation big international companies increasingly use English as a corporate language, and today English seems to be perceived as a natural part of employees’ competencies rather than a competence in its own right. However, while it is a fact that English is the principal global language used to ease communication in a multinational and multilingual environment, research findings suggest that it may not be a lingua franca in the sense that it is a neutral instrument of communication. Hence the use of English as a corporate language may have its strengths and its weaknesses, which I would like to explore in my thesis.

The point of departure for my thesis will be an introduction of the position of English in Denmark, which, I find, form the background for my interest in the use of English as a corporate language. The introduction of the position of English in Denmark will lead on to my problem statement, my delimitation and a brief introduction to my research approach and method. Furthermore, the introduction will offer a definition of two key concepts: corporate language and lingua franca. Finally, I should like to outline my thesis structure.

1.1 The position of English in Denmark

The linguistic developments in Denmark have been thoroughly debated and discussed for some years now. Denmark is a small country with a small language, which means that a global language such as English has a great influence on society. As Preisler writes in his book about the Danes and the English language (Danskerne og det engelske sprog, 1999) English has an enormous influence on people’s daily lives, on education, on the communication in official and semi-official agencies and in international companies. The very strong position of English in Denmark has lead to a political and public debate on national and international language policy, parallel languages and domain loss to English.

Jarvad (2001) discusses domain loss in research, university teaching, and in the business community. The concern for a potential domain loss of Danish to English within the business community is a consequence of an increase in the use of English in Danish international companies. Globalisation has created a need for a common corporate language to communicate across national and linguistic boundaries within the international organisation. Jarvad (ibid.) has examined the use of English as a common corporate language in companies with a special need for international communication and she argues that the use of English in the business community will undoubtedly increase in the future. The globalisation and the increase in the use of English in the business community mean that the political and public debate on national language policy includes discussions on domain loss within this area as well. Harder (2001) discusses the position of English in the business community and the use of English as a corporate language and appeals to the Danish business community on ensuring the maintenance of Danish parallel with English by considering the issue in the language policy. Davidsen-Nielsen (2003) also

4


points out the importance of ensuring the use of Danish and English as parallel languages to avoid domain loss to English. The Danish Language Council (Dansk Sprognævn, 2007) even mentions a societal responsibility on part of the Danish business community to ensure that Danish is maintained as the official language by limiting the marginalisation of Danish at the advantage of English.

As a consequence of the linguistic developments in Denmark the Danish Government has made an investigation with reference to the status of Danish as the official language (the Danish Ministry of Culture, 2008 and 2009). A national language committee was assigned as a response to the public debate and to some political pressure in terms of a potential need for legislation to avoid domain loss. Among other things the language committee should assess whether Danish is marginalised at the advantage of English in the business community as a consequence of the globalisation and the increase in foreign in-house employees in Danish companies. The language committee suggests that Danish is not threatened in the business community, although many international companies use English as a corporate language. The committee argues that Danish and English ‘thrive side by side as parallel languages’ (2008: 63). It argues that there is a tendency to localise language in the sense that most of the company’s written material is translated into local languages, and the use of English is confined to situations where it is deemed most appropriate and efficient. Furthermore, the committee argues that the Danish business community seems to have a pragmatic approach to the use of English, which means that the choice of language depends on what is deemed most appropriate and efficient in a specific situation. However, the language committee also draws attention to a societal responsibility, and suggests that Danish international companies should include in their language policy a consideration for the double purpose of maintaining Danish as the official language and at the same time ensuring a global orientation (2008, 2009).

Hence there is a double position on the use of English in the Danish business community. On the one hand the Danish business community has a responsibility towards maintaining Danish as an official language and ensuring that Danish is not marginalised at the advantage of English as a consequence of globalisation and the increased use of English in Danish companies. On the other hand, the Danish business community needs to ensure a global orientation, which implies the use of English to communicate with foreign colleagues both in-house and abroad.

The Confederation of Danish Industry contributes to the debate with the position that Danish does not seem to be marginalised at the advantage of English. English is rather a linguistic supplement which eases knowledge-sharing in the company and provides a bridge between nationalities (Ostrynski, 2007). However, the Confederation of Danish Industry offers another perspective on the increased use of English in the Danish business community. The spread of English seems to have created a language competence paradox (Lundager Jensen, 2003). The paradox is that on the one hand language becomes more important, not least English, but on the other hand language loses importance as a competence in its own right. It becomes still more natural that you manage English, and it is perceived as a prerequisite and a parallel competence (ibid.). Therefore, companies may lose focus on the importance of language competencies in their own right as a competitive parameter (ibid.). The language competence paradox is interesting in the light of research findings on the use of English in Danish companies.

5


Parallel with the political and public debate on the position of English in the Danish business community the challenges of language diversity are discussed (Lauring and Korsgaard, 2006). Danish companies face linguistic and communicative challenges when they use English in an attempt to solve the problems of language diversity (ibid.). Conflicts and exclusion of foreign employees may be the result of Danish employees’ lack of consistency in using English when foreigners are present, and misunderstandings may occur due to lack of proficiency in the common corporate language English (ibid.). Tange and Lauring (2006) challenge the notion of English as a neutral, corporate medium and their research reveals that employees form linguistic clusters and that language barriers influence social interaction, which results in a lack of valuable knowledge-sharing within the company.

However, research also reveals that the consistent use of English as a common corporate language may improve cohesion within multinational corporations (Lauring and Selmer, 2009). Lauring argues that management communication in a common language creates a positive synergy effect which affects the deep social processes in the workplace. When information is comprehensible for everyone the working environment and the cohesion within the company are improved (ASB, 2009).

The very strong position of English in Denmark seems to cause not only national and societal challenges in terms of domain loss and the maintenance of Danish as an official language. It seems to challenge corporate communication within big international companies as well. The increased use of English in Danish companies seems to pose linguistic and communicative challenges to the Danish business community, although research also suggests that the use of English has a positive effect on the cohesion within the company.

1.2 Problem statement

The ongoing public debate on the very strong position of English in Denmark, especially on the use of English in the business community, has motivated me to explore the strengths and weaknesses of using English as a corporate language. The use of English as a corporate language increases with the globalisation of the Danish business community. Big international companies increasingly use English as a corporate language in an attempt to communicate more easily in a multinational and multilingual environment. However, on the one hand research findings suggest that English is not a neutral corporate medium of communication (Tange and Lauring, 2006). As such the use of English may not overcome the language barrier in the multinational and multilingual corporation. On the other hand research findings suggest that the use of English may have a positive effect on the cohesion within the company (Lauring and Selmer, 2009).

Hence the purpose of my thesis is to explore the strengths and weaknesses of using English as a corporate language by asking the following two research questions: 1) can the use of English as a corporate language overcome the language barrier of a multinational and multilingual corporation?, and 2) can the use of English as a corporate language have a positive effect on the cohesion within the company?

6


1.3 Delimitation

The discussions on the use of English as a corporate language emerge from the ongoing debate on the very strong position of English in Denmark, which involve topics on domain loss, parallel languages and language diversity. However, in order to answer the above research questions I shall focus my investigation on the use of English as a corporate language with reference to the linguistic challenges English usage pose to corporate communication and the effects, positive or negative, the use of English as a corporate language may have on the cohesion within the company. Hence it is not the intention to explore the topics on domain loss, parallel languages and language diversity, since they are not directly relevant for my research questions.

1.4 Research approach and method

My research approach is exploratory and qualitative. The theoretical framework approaches English as a corporate language from a management, a sociolinguistic and a linguistic perspective, in an attempt to offer a holistic view of the issue. The empirical data consist of qualitative interviews with a small sample of employees in one department of Vestas Wind Systems A/S. While the research findings referred to in the above section on the position of English in Denmark are based on quantitative and qualitative data from a broad range of Danish companies and from the academic community I have chosen to make an in-depth study into one Danish multinational corporation, in an attempt to approach individual language users and their working environment.

1.5 Key concepts

At this stage I find that two key concepts need to be defined. The concept of corporate language needs to be defined, since it is the topic for my investigation. However, I find that the concept of lingua franca needs definition as well. English is often referred to as a lingua franca in the sense that it is a neutral instrument of communication. However, English is also often challenged as a neutral instrument of communication. Therefore, a definition of the concept of lingua franca will serve as a basis for my investigation as well.

1.5.1 Corporate language defined

There seems to be no common definition of the concept of corporate language. The literature offers several definitions of the concept. Jarvad defines corporate language as ‘a language which is used as a working language, especially in a company which has a certain degree of external communication’ (2001: 147). Tange and Lauring define corporate language as ‘the privileged speech of a corporation, which may or may not be territorially defined’ (2009: 219). Sørensen (2005) defines corporate language as ‘an administrative managerial tool, or mechanism, deriving from the need for an international board of directors and chief executive management of a global corporation to be able to run operations’ (2005: 6). At the same time Sørensen suggests that corporate Denmark’s approach to the use of English as a corporate language ‘is based on the principles of best practice’ (2005: 69) as a result of the lack of a common perception of the concept.

7


However, for the purpose of my investigation I have chosen to rely on the definition by Thomas (2008). He outlines the concept of corporate language in the perspective of two other language dimensions in the multinational corporation: the parent company language and multiple local (foreign) languages. Also he suggests that the corporate language improves ‘global corporate-wide communication’ (2008: 311).

As such my definition of the concept of corporate language is: the common language adopted by a multinational and multilingual corporation for its global corporate-wide communication. In a Danish multinational corporation the corporate language would usually be English, the parent company language would be Danish and there would be the local languages of the company’s subsidiaries. My definition comprises the internal communication and not the external communication with local customers and authorities, since external communication often needs to take place in a local language different from the corporate language. Furthermore, my definition does not imply a replacement of any other language, parent company language or local language, within the corporation.

1.5.2 Lingua franca defined

A lingua franca is a language used between people whose main languages are different. Phillipson (2008) suggests that when a language, such as English, is defined as a lingua franca it generally seems to imply that ‘the language is a neutral instrument for ‘international’ communication between speakers who do not share a mother tongue’ (2008: 250). Louhiala-Salminen et al (2005) use the term Business English Lingua Franca to explore and discuss issues related to English usage in two Scandinavian companies. They define Business English Lingua Franca as a ‘’neutral’ and shared communication code’ (2005: 404). It is ‘neutral’ in the sense that none of the speakers can claim it as her/his mother tongue (ibid.). It is shared in the sense that it is used for conducting business within the global business discourse community, whose members are Business English Lingua Franca users and communicators in their own right, and not ‘non-native speakers’ or ‘learners’ (ibid.).

These two definitions serve as a basis for my investigation. As such my definition of a lingua franca is: a neutral and shared communication code between speakers who do not share a mother tongue. It is neutral and shared in the sense that the speakers are communicators in their own right.

1.6 Thesis structure

The introduction offered information on the position of English in Denmark and revealed the problem statement and delimitation. Furthermore, it introduced the research approach and method, and it offered a definition of two key concepts: corporate language and lingua franca.

The remaining part of the thesis will be divided into five chapters: 1) literature review, 2) data and methodology, 3) analysis of the data, 4) discussion, and 5) conclusion. I have chosen this structure because I consider the literature review the point of departure for my investigation. The findings, theories and concepts offered in the literature on English as a corporate language will serve as a basis for my interview investigation. The chapter on data and methodology offers information on the company as well as information on the research methodology and the respondents. The introduction, the literature review and the chapter on data and methodology lead to the analysis of the data

8


produced in the interviews. The analysis will be followed by a discussion which will attempt to answer the two research questions. Finally, the conclusion will recapitulate on the purpose, on the answers to my research questions and on the thesis as such.

9


2. Literature review

The following chapter offers a review of the literature which serves as a theoretical basis for my investigation. The literature offers various approaches to the issue of using English as a corporate language. However, there seems to appear three major perspectives on the issue: 1) the management perspective, 2) the sociolinguistic perspective, and 3) the linguistic perspective. The management perspective focuses on the corporate language as a strategic option to overcome the barrier of language diversity in multinational and multilingual corporations. The management scholars conceptualise language management. But they also discuss language management in practice, including the use of English as a corporate language. The sociolinguistic perspective focuses on the individual language user. Communicative practices in connection with the use of English are defined and discussed, in an attempt to challenge the notion of English as a neutral corporate medium of communication. The linguistic perspective focuses on English as a language. It focuses on the status of English as a global language, and on the influence of English in Denmark.

The three perspectives interrelate and offer a holistic approach to the issue of English as a corporate language:

The remaining part of this chapter has been divided into three sections on 1) the management perspective, 2) the sociolinguistic perspective, and 3) the linguistic perspective.

2.1 The management perspective

The management perspective section has been divided into two sub-sections, in an attempt to review separately 1) language management conceptualised and 2) language management in practice.

2.1.1 Language management conceptualised

In order to understand why many multinational and multilingual corporations choose to adopt a common corporate language I find it relevant to turn to international business scholars Alan J. Feely and Anne-Wil Harzing, who discuss and define language management in multinational companies (2003). Feely and Harzing offer an illustration of the impact of the language barrier in multinational

10

The management perspective

The linguistic perspective

The sociolinguistic

perspective

English as a

corporate

language


corporations. They propose and discuss three dimensions of the language barrier (2003: 39). Language diversity, which they define as ‘the number of different languages, the company has to manage’. Language penetration, which they define as ‘the number of functions and the number of levels within those functions that are engaged in cross-lingual communication’. Also language sophistication, which they define as ‘the complexity and refinement of the language skills required’. They argue that the language barrier has a range of negative effects on communication (2003: 41) and they define options for managing language problems in the multinational corporation, including the adoption of a corporate language (2003: 45). They highlight benefits and problems in connection with the use of a corporate language, and argue that the use of a common corporate language facilitates formal reporting and informal communication; it gives a sense of belonging as an element in diffusing a corporate culture; and it brings the management of language problems into focus. However, it is a long-term strategy to diffuse the corporate language throughout the organisation; it may be impossible to adopt only one single language; and employees who lack competence in the corporate language may resist using it (2003:45).

Feely and Harzing point out that language is the forgotten and neglected orphan of international business research and they draw attention to the importance of language management in multinational corporations (2002, 2003). They suggest that multinational corporations should measure the three language barrier dimensions and identify strengths and weaknesses (2003: 40). Also they offer a definition of the language barrier from the perspective of first language users and second language users respectively and its consequences for corporate communication (2002, 2003, and 2008). The definition of the language barrier will be dealt with in the following three paragraphs.

The problems affecting first language users are miscommunication, attribution and code-switching. Miscommunication occurs when second language users’ lack of competence in the language results in ‘confused, incomplete and ambiguous communication’ (2002: 9). Attribution occurs when the first language users think that a second language user is ‘culturally more akin to them than in fact they really are’ (2002: 10) because the second language users appear relatively fluent. Code-switching occurs when second language users ‘huddle together and revert to talking between themselves in their native language’ (ibid.).

The problems affecting second language users are loss of rhetorical skills, face, and power/authority distortion. Loss of rhetorical skills is when second language users are ‘robbed of the interpersonal skills of humour, symbolism, sensitivity, negotiation, persuasion and even coercion’ (ibid.). Face is where a manager is working in his second language and may not fully comprehend the contents of an agreement. He then may find himself signing up to something he does not fully comprehend if ‘the risk of losing track is high and the need to maintain face becomes an over-riding priority’ (2002: 11). Power/authority distortion is when a second language user has ‘relinquished some of the control over the relationship’ (ibid.) to a first language user by accommodating to the first language user’s language.

The consequences of the language barrier problems on corporate communication are more formality and less effective communication, which leads to failure to communicate effectively and again to uncertainty, anxiety and mistrust.

11


In continuation of their definition of the language barrier and its consequences for the corporate communication Feely and Harzing argue that ‘perhaps the most pronounced manifestation of the language barrier at work can be found in the relationship between a multinational parent company and its subsidiaries’ (2008: 53).

2.1.2 Language management in practice

The power of language

International management scholars Denice E. Welch, Lawrence S. Welch and Rebecca Marschan-Piekkari, examine language as a management factor in multinational corporations and analyse how a multinational corporation attempts to cope with language diversity by adopting a corporate language (1997, 2001). Their perspective is management strategy in the sense that they consider the impact of language ‘on the multinational’s ability to control and coordinate its global subsidiary network’ (1997: 591). They draw on empirical studies in multinational corporations, especially an in-depth investigation of the Finnish multinational corporation Kone Elevators, and show how language management in the form of a corporate language works in practice (1997, 1999a, 1999b, 2001, 2005).

Welch et al identify a range of responses from subsidiary staff to cross-language communication situations in the corporate language (1997: 593ff). One is passive behaviour, which means that a person who lacks fluency in the corporate language simply ignores or disregards communication in the corporate language. Another response is the use of a language intermediary or ‘language node’ who is fluent in the company language and can provide a translation. They also discuss how informal language links occur between the different units of the company and between units and head office, where people identify and liaise with those who speak their mother tongue, in order to overcome the language barrier.

From a management perspective Welch et al sum up the influence of language and argue that ‘language can be a facilitator to communication within the multinational, but it can also act as an impediment’ (1997: 595). They identify two important forms of impediment. The first is filtration, which they define as a situation ‘where messages are only partially transmitted’. The second is distortion, which they define as a situation ‘where intended meaning is altered during the transmission of the message’. And they argue that language facility may give some people the power to act as information gatekeepers, which again may be counter-productive to communication (1997: 596).

They elaborate on the power of language and identify language as a shadow structure of the formal organisation (1999a: 433ff). They show how the Kone data reveal five language clusters. The language clusters include Finnish, which is the national language of the parent company, and English, which is the corporate language. Communication patterns and information flows follow the shadow structure rather than the formal organisation structure.

However, Welch et al also identify another issue when discussing the power of language. They identify what they refer to as ‘the added complication of Finnish’ (1997: 597). They show how Finnish works as an unofficial corporate language in Kone:

12


In Kone there was an additional language layer which seemed to affect inter-unit communication. Knowledge of Finnish appeared to facilitate communication flows, and as some interviewees commented, Finnish nationals occupied many important positions at Kone Elevators’ headquarters [..] Thus, despite English being the official corporate language in Kone Elevators, its country of origin and ‘mother tongue’ played an important role in inter-unit communication. (1999a: 429-430).

In a similar vein they discuss social exclusion through language, which can affect the individual’s sense of belonging and corporate cohesion (2005: 18). They explain how the use of Finnish, the parent company language, at international meetings may act as an exclusionary factor, when non-Finnish participants feel left out from discussions (ibid.)

On the other hand, they also argue that when you impose English as a corporate language in a company like Kone you force thousands of employees worldwide to operate in a second language which adds to the cross-language communication problems (2001: 200ff). When no one speaks their mother tongue and some may lack fluency in the company language errors and misunderstandings may occur. At the same time when non-native English speakers discuss with native English speakers difficulties may also arise, because the non-native English speakers find that the native English speakers’ English is difficult to understand.

The above review of Welch et al’s analyses of language management in practice show that the adoption of English as a corporate language may not solve all cross-language communication problems: ‘adopting a corporate language is an important step but, by itself, is not necessarily a solution and may introduce other problems’ (2005: 24).

Knowledge-sharing, clustering and corporate cohesion

As explained above Welch et al touch on the issues of language clusters and corporate cohesion. International business scholars Kristiina Mäkelä, Hanna Kalla and Rebecca Piekkari (2004); Riikka Fredriksson, Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen and Rebecca Piekkari (2006); and Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen and Ingmar Björkman (2007) elaborate on the issues of language clusters and corporate cohesion. Again their perspective is management, but their analyses are based on empirical data from various case studies of multinational corporations and demonstrate language management in practice.

Mäkelä et al identify various clusters within the multinational corporation, including linguistic driven clusters, which operate both as enablers and barriers to knowledge-sharing (2004). They define knowledge-sharing as ‘formal and informal exchanges in ongoing social interaction, thus mobilising knowledge that is scattered around the corporation’ (2004: 2), and they define the phenomenon of clustering as ‘the formation of subgroups within networks’ (ibid.). They demonstrate that individuals tend to prefer to share knowledge within linguistic clusters and language-based networks (2004: 10-11), and that the ability to communicate in the corporate language may result in various patterns of social inclusion and exclusion (2004: 11). Since English was the corporate language used in the multinational corporations of their case study, they argue that:

13


The wide-spread usage and fluency of the English language may have created a false impression of a shared cultural context among MNC managers, producing miscommunication and blockages in knowledge exchange (2004: 11-12).

Furthermore, Mäkelä et al (2004) introduce the sociological concept of homophily in an attempt to understand the phenomenon of clustering.

The theory of homophily (the tendency of people to choose to interact with similar others) is presented by McPherson et al (2001). Homophily is the principle that ‘a contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people’ (2001: 416). Or in other words ‘similarity breeds connection’ (2001: 415). Homophily structures network types of every type including friendship, work, information transfer and exchange. Homophily limits people’s social worlds in a way that has powerful implications for the information they receive, the attitudes they form, and the interactions they experience. McPherson et al (2001) offer an extensive review and discussion of homophily in social networks. Among other things they conclude by briefly noting cognitive processes that have historically dominated the research on homophily and argue that ‘we would expect people to associate with similar others for ease of communication, shared cultural tastes [..] and other features that smooth the coordination of activity and communication’ (2001: 435).

Mäkelä et al argue that ‘homophily within subgroups of people drives internal clustering within MNCs’ (2004: 16). The consequence is that ‘knowledge flows better within clusters than between clusters’ and that ‘similarity breeds not only connection but also understanding and trust – and thus contributes to more effective knowledge-sharing within clusters’ (ibid.).

With reference to linguistic clustering they conclude that patterns of clustering were observed also around personal attributes such as language (2004: 17). They draw attention to the importance of rediscovering the individual as a central unit of analysis within multinational corporations (2004: 18), and argue that the issue of clustering based on homophily within multinational corporations is an important contribution of their study (ibid.).

Fredriksson et al (2006) argue that the corporate language of a multinational corporation may not be as widely shared within the company as the term suggests, due to the multilingual nature of most multinationals and the variation in the language proficiency of the employees. Their findings are based on a case study of the German-based multinational Siemens. Their analysis shows that language competence, including competence in English, was very important and a key to information and power (2006: 417). Furthermore, it shows that there were different interpretations within the company of the decision to adopt a corporate language (2006: 418), and although attempts had been made to make the organisation monolingual (English) or bilingual (English and German) the company still operated as a multilingual community (2006: 419).

Fredriksson et al (2006: 419) highlight a tension in multinational corporations with roots in non-English speaking countries, which is ‘problematic from the perspective of corporate cohesion and integration’:

14


The considerable tension that existed between Siemens’ history, its administrative heritage, and the key role of its German units on the one hand, and its newer business areas, global reach, and the strengthening position of English as the lingua franca of international business on the other (ibid.).

And they continue arguing that:

Linguistic diversity within the boundaries of one and the same firm may have disintegrating effects, which may be particularly strong if the end result is polarisation into two equally strong language-based camps (in Siemens’ case English and German) (ibid.).

The above highlights how important a truly shared corporate language is for the multinational corporation in terms of cohesion, trust and shared visions. An issue dealt with also by Barner-Rasmussen and Björkman (2007). Their analysis suggests that fluency in a common language is of crucial importance for the development of close inter-unit relationships (2007: 125). They define language fluency as ‘the extent to which persons from one MCN unit, when communicating with another unit, are able to speak or write easily and accurately in the language in which the communication takes place’ (2007: 106). Their results show that language fluency has a positive effect on shared vision and perceived trustworthiness in the multinational corporation (2007: 121). However, the individuals’ ability to interact about specific work-related issues may be equally important, and the relative importance of general language fluency vs. knowledge in technical and professional terminology for the development of trust and shared vision within the multinational corporation should be further investigated (2007: 122).

The recent findings of Lauring and Selmer (2009) contribute to the above findings on corporate language and cohesion. The findings are based on a quantitative study among academics in science departments in three large universities in Denmark. The study was conducted to explore how language diversity and the use of a common language may affect group cohesion among members of multicultural organisations. Lauring and Selmer argue that ‘the degree of consistency in communicating by the use of a common organisational language may have implications for group cohesiveness in multicultural organisations’ (2009: 7), and that ‘it is a challenge to achieve consistency’ (2009: 8). Lauring and Selmer’s theoretical concept of English language consistency encompasses ‘to what extent English is used in personal, work-related and management communication’ (2009:8).

Lauring and Selmer’s (2009) findings suggest that the consistent use of English as a common language in management communication is positively associated with group cohesion variables in multicultural organisations. The group cohesion variables used are group conflict, group trust and group involvement. The findings also suggest that ‘the consistent use of English as a common language in daily work communication and personal communication among organisation members is of less importance to group cohesiveness than the consistency in the English management communication’ (2009: 21).

The management perspective focuses on corporate language as a strategic option to overcome the barrier of language diversity, but also highlights the importance of focusing research on the individual language user.

15


Barner-Rasmussen and Björkman (2007: 124) suggest that it is important to focus on ‘the individual level of analysis and the role of key individuals in international corporations’. An issue dealt with also by Welch et al (2001, 2005). In their discussion of language in a corporate context they point out that language is a difficult factor to separate in international management studies and one of the reasons is that ‘language skills are competencies possessed by individuals, not by organisations’, hence ‘the foreign language ability of a firm is essentially the sum of the language ability of its employees’ (2001: 194). Welch et al further suggest that ‘language is person-bound, permeating all facets of multinational activities and behaviour’ (2005: 24).

The importance of focusing on the individual level of analysis naturally bridges the management perspective and the sociolinguistic perspective, which will be dealt with in the following section.

2.2 The sociolinguistic perspective

Sociolinguistics is the study of the relationship between language and society (Holmes 2008: 1). Sociolinguistic studies focus on the way language works, on the social relationships in a community and on the way people signal aspects of their social identity through their language (ibid.). In the sense that sociolinguists examine the way people use language in different social contexts the sociolinguistic perspective on the use of English as a corporate language focuses on the individual language user and not the organisation.

The section on the sociolinguistic perspective has been divided into three sub-sections in an attempt to review issues on 1) global or local orientation, 2) the role of common sense, and 3) language clustering and thin communication separately.

2.2.1 Global or local orientation

Hanne Tange has examined the effect of a corporate language initiative within one Danish multinational corporation (2008, 2009). From a management strategy perspective the language initiative should promote the corporate language of English to ‘strengthen employees’ formal and informal networks, allowing for a more effective and rapid exchange of information within the multinational’ (2008: 162). Tange focuses her study on individual language workers within the organisation and examines their experiences with and assessment of the language initiative. She identifies a gap within the group of language workers interviewed and draw attention to a contrast between a global orientation towards the language initiative and a local view (2008: 171). Those with a global orientation are committed to the language initiative, whereas those with a local view disengage themselves from the initiative, which they perceive to have little relevance to their everyday routines (2008: 172).

2.2.2 The role of common sense

Sharon Millar and Astrid Jensen (forthcoming) offer an interesting approach to the use of English in the Danish corporate sector. They also focus on the individual and consider how managers and employees in Danish companies discursively construct their arguments about language issues, including their own use of English and the role of English as a corporate language.

16


Millar and Jensen challenge the notion of English as a lingua franca in the sense that they challenge the construction of English as ‘the global bridge across the multilingual divide’ (ibid.). They argue that the construction relies on an assumption that people can use and understand English to a degree that permits successful communication. Their data give an insight into the discursive construction of the perception of being ‘good’ at English and reveal information about the contexts of the use of English, especially as a corporate language. They rely on the theory of social representations, which ‘refer to the stock of social knowledge which people share in the form of common-sense theories about the social world’ (ibid.). Social representations ‘form the basis of our understanding of the social world, enabling interaction within groups sharing the representation and orienting the way group members deal with outsiders’ (ibid.).

Millar and Jensen suggest that there is some evidence of a social representation of ‘Danes as having good or reasonable skills in English’ (ibid.). However, they question what the parameters of evaluation are and identify two: ‘being good enough for the requirements of the job’ and ‘being better than other nationalities’ (ibid.). As far as the first parameter is concerned they identify the phenomenon of a specific type of company English, which has become the norm within a specific company despite its imperfections. They argue that ‘the idea of having English skills that are good “enough” to get the job done is both pervasive and persuasive’ (ibid.) in the sense that employees who were less confident about their competence in English did not see this as a problem in relation to their job. As far as the second parameter is concerned they identify the phenomenon of ‘cross-national comparison’ (ibid.), which means that ‘being “good” relates to being “better” than other nationalities’ (ibid.) and not necessarily fully confident about own competence in English.

Furthermore, Millar and Jensen suggest that there is evidence of a social representation of ‘English as a language that increasingly can be used in most places in the world’ (ibid.), which means that there is a corporate representation of English as the global bridge, ‘even if competence levels are not especially good’ (ibid.). They discuss how the use of English as a corporate language is operationalised within the company and highlight an important issue, i.e. the linguistic power relations. They argue that English maintains its super ordinate status, but draw attention to an important factor:

A factor that can be decisive, and potentially divisive, in relation to the role of English as a corporate language is the presence in the parent company of foreign employees who do not speak the local language. (ibid.).

They point to a general concern within the parent company that information will not be properly or effectively disseminated and discussed if meetings are held in English, where most of the participants are Danish. Also they point to the contradiction that on the one hand people feel confident about their abilities in English, but on the other hand they do not feel confident enough to disseminate information or share knowledge. They suggest that ’it may be that companies define themselves as international, but their employees may still categorise each other on the basis of national and/or linguistic belonging’ (ibid.).

17


Finally, Millar and Jensen (ibid.) also discuss the understanding within the company of the concept of English as a corporate language and suggest that the concept is unclear for some employees and can vary in its interpretation. They point to the fact that the number of non-Danish speaking foreigners in the parent company increases, which means that the use of English in daily in-house communication and meetings grows.

2.2.3 Language clustering and thin communication

Tange and Lauring (2009) also examine employees’ linguistic practice from a sociolinguistic perspective. On the basis of a qualitative study among 14 Danish organisations they identify communicative practices emerging from the decisions to implement English as a corporate language. They examine two barriers to communication within the multilingual workplace. One of the barriers is language clustering. An issue also dealt with by Mäkelä et al (2004) and Welch et al (1999a) as revealed earlier in this review.

Tange and Lauring define language clustering as ‘the emergence of alternative linguistic markets based on employees’ national languages’ (2009: 225). Language clustering takes the form of ‘informal gatherings between the speakers of the same national language’ (2009: 224), and the consequence of language clustering is that communication is contained ‘within specific cultural and social groups’ (2009: 223). The practice of clustering can be ‘ascribed to linguistic inadequacy’ (2009: 225). The study reveals that even if employees perceive themselves to be competent English users, they express a certain comfort in speaking their native language, admitting that when they encounter a work-related problem, they prefer to consult someone from their own speech community rather than approach an expert belonging to another language group (2009: 225). In this way the linguistic practice of language clustering is exclusive, and from a management perspective it ‘weakens trans-organisational knowledge-sharing and networks’ (2009: 226). Tange and Lauring’s research substantiates the argument that ‘multilingualism results in a containment of communication and information to particular linguistic communities’ (2009: 226).

In addition to language clustering Tange and Lauring (2009) identify the communicative practice of thin communication. They define thin communication as ‘the withdrawal of organisational members from informal interaction performed in a non-native, corporate language such as English’ (2009: 220). The consequence of thin communication is ‘the reduction in the quantity and quality of employee exchanges’ (2009: 226) in the sense that ‘corporate communication becomes more formal and task-oriented’ (2009: 226). Thin communication can be ‘ascribed to the fact that people are confined to a limited range of linguistic registers in their second or foreign language’ (2009: 227), and thin communication ‘may have a negative impact on organisational information networks and knowledge transfers’ (ibid.). The study reveals that some employees see the formalisation of communication as a possible threat to the coherence and integration of the organisation (2009: 227). Tange and Lauring’s (2009) research demonstrates ‘how the implementation of English as a corporate language affects social interaction, knowledge-sharing and organisational culture’ (2009: 228).

Tange and Lauring conclude that ‘the effects of language diversity are more profound than what has been suggested in previous research on language management’ and the analysis highlights that

18


‘language differences and corporate language are equally problematic for the effectiveness of cross-cultural communication, inspiring in language users the communicative practices of language clustering and thin communication’ (2009: 228). They continue that the problem of language clusters arises from ‘a tendency among individuals to seek the company of people from a similar cultural and linguistic background’ (2009: 229) and that thin communication is ‘linked to employees’ self-perception, possibly concealing a sense of linguistic inadequacy’ (ibid.).

While the sociolinguistic perspective above focuses on the individual language user the linguistic perspective focuses on the language.

2.3 The linguistic perspective

The linguistic perspective is not as extensive as the management and sociolinguistic perspectives with reference to the use of English as a corporate language. However, the linguistic perspective offers relevant information on the status of English as a global language and the influence of English in Denmark. Hence this section has been divided into two sub-sections on 1) the status of English as a global language and 2) the position of English in Denmark.

2.3.1 The status of English as a global language

Crystal (2003) offers a review of English as a global language. He discusses what a global language is, why we need a global language and how English has developed as a global language. In an attempt to define what a global language is, Crystal argues that ‘a language achieves a genuinely global status when it develops a special role that is recognised in every country’ (2003: 3). This means that non-English speaking countries need to take up the language and decide to give it a special place within their communities, either by making it the official language of the country or by giving priority to this language in the country’s foreign-language teaching. Crystal argues that English has reached the stage of a global language, and statistics suggest that about a quarter of the world’s population is already fluent or competent in English (2003: 6). He further argues that ‘the more a community is linguistically mixed, the less it can rely on individuals to ensure communication between different groups’ by means of translation (2003: 11). Hence there is a need for a lingua franca or common language. Crystal points out that the international business communities have a particular need for the adoption of a common language:

The need for a global language is particularly appreciated by the international academic and business communities, and it is here that the adoption of a single lingua franca is most in evidence, both in lecture-rooms and board-rooms, as well as in thousands of individual contacts being made daily all over the globe. (2003: 13).

Crystal (2003: 60) explains the spread of English throughout the world by an illustration of three circles comprising 1) the traditional basis of English (USA, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), 2) the early non-native settings (Singapore, India and other territories), and 3) those nations which recognise the importance of English as an international language (China, Japan and other states). The areas included in circle number three teach English as a foreign language. He discusses international

19


relations and argues that ‘the overriding impression is that, wherever in the world an organisation is based, English is the chief auxiliary language’ (2003: 89). He further elaborates on the spread of English throughout areas such as the press, advertising, broadcasting, motion pictures and popular music. He also elaborates on the spread of English through international travel, transport, education, communications, and the internet, and he argues that ‘English is the medium of a great deal of the world’s knowledge’ (2003: 110).

2.3.2 The influence of English in Denmark

In a similar vein Preisler (1999, 2003) examines the influence of English on Danish and the Danes’ English. His research findings are based on a large-scale investigation into the socio-psychological mechanisms behind the influence of English on Danish. His findings are based on two complementary projects: 1) a quantitative survey among 856 adult Danes on their attitude to English and their experiences with English usage, and 2) a qualitative survey among young Danes representing Anglo-American subcultures on the influence of English ‘from below’. The project on the influence of Anglo-American subcultures is not relevant for this review on English as a corporate language. Hence the review will only include findings on the first project mentioned.

Preisler distinguishes between the influence of English on Danish ‘from above’ and ‘from below’. He defines English ‘from above’ in this way:

By English “from above” I mean the skills and attitudes relating to the use of English that are due to English being promoted by the institutions of the dominant society – the educational system and various official and semi-official agencies involved in international communication. (2003: 110).

Preisler argues that ‘the formal teaching of English by the educational system provides a necessary tool – making people able to speak and write English’ (2003: 112). But he also argues that an influence of English ‘from below’ explains not only how they are able to speak English but why Danish people code-switch to English in many situations. He mentions a number of domains which have become internationalised in Denmark, among others university research and corporate business. Within those domains most communication may be in English. But he also mentions that the use of English in Denmark is not determined only by these domains, but also by the structure of social networks and argues that ‘Danes hardly ever make a complete switch to English unless the assumption is that the audience is international and that Danish would constitute a barrier to communication’ (2003: 112-113). He discusses how the Danes are exposed to the English language in their daily lives through foreign films, TV programs, advertising, shop signs, posters, and in many cases even instruction manuals. The area of personal computers and games for both children and adults are also dominated by English.

Preisler continues that English is highly prestigious in Denmark as a foreign language, and that ‘the majority of Danes consider themselves quite proficient in English, and it is obvious from the extent of code-switching in the Danish media that knowledge of English in the general population is taken for granted’ (2003: 123). Among other things he concludes that ‘English is highly prestigious as a key to participation in the internationalisation process’ (2003: 125).

20


2.4 Summary

The above literature review offered a holistic view of the use of English as a corporate language. The three perspectives: the management, the sociolinguistic and the linguistic perspective offered research findings, theories and definitions relevant for the understanding of the concept of English as a corporate language. The research findings revealed in the review will serve as a basis for my investigation as will the theories and definitions in general. However, I find it relevant to point out the key theories and definitions which I will rely on in my analysis and discussion. I will rely on the language barrier theory as offered by Feely and Harzing (2002, 2008), and I will rely on the homophily theory as offered by McPherson et al (2001). Furthermore, I will rely on Lauring and Selmer’s (2009) definition of English language consistency and Tange and Lauring’s (2009) definitions of language clustering and thin communication. I will also rely on Crystal’s (2003) argument on English as a global language.

21


3. Data and methodology

Chapter 1 briefly introduced my research approach and method. The chapter on data and methodology will offer a brief company profile of Vestas Wind Systems A/S and the department in which the investigation was conducted. Furthermore, it will elaborate on the research methodology with reference to data collection, the respondents, the interview guide, and validity respectively. Hence the chapter will be divided into two sections: 1) company profile and 2) research methodology.

The information on the company is based on the Vestas Annual Report (2008), the company’s official website www.vestas.com and interview with one senior employee, the Vice President of Sustainability.

3.1 Company profile

In the early stages of the preparation for my thesis I contacted the Danish multinational Vestas Wind Systems A/S for their interest in offering a sample of people for my investigation. My gatekeeper was Vestas’ Language Manager, who allowed me to contact his colleagues in the Sustainability department at Vestas’ office in Randers.

Vestas is the world's leading supplier of wind power solutions with a 20 per cent market share, and more than 39,000 wind turbines installed in 63 countries on five continents. Three decades of development has lead to the establishment of Vestas as a global market-leading group, and at the end of 2008 the company employed a total of 20,829 people, an increase of 5,524 relative to the end of 2007 (Vestas Annual Report, 2008). Based on its No. 1 in Modern Energy strategy, Vestas intends to build the world’s strongest energy brand, and the vision is to make wind an energy source on a par with the fossil fuels oil and gas. Vestas’ headquarters are located in Denmark (Randers), with offices in Asia, North America, South America, Oceania, and throughout Europe. Over the course of four years, the number of employees has risen by 117 per cent (Vestas Annual Report, 2008). The rise in number of employees and the globalisation of the company have caused also a rise in the mobility of people across national and linguistic boundaries. Furthermore, the rise in number of employees has caused a low average seniority in general in the organisation.

Vestas’ corporate language is English. The decision to use English as a corporate language is stated in the introduction to the company’s English Language Guide, which is intended as a tool to help employees with their English communication:

At Vestas, the corporate language is English. Much of our communication with business partners and colleagues is in English. The English language, however, is the second language for many Vestas employees. The Language Network has therefore prepared this language guide which is intended as a tool to help our colleagues with their English communication. (Enclosure 1).

Due to Vestas’ non-English speaking base and the maturity and extent of its global operations the company offers an interesting environment for an investigation on the use of English as a corporate language. However, a broad analysis of English usage in a multicultural and multilingual organisation of the size of Vestas is a very complex undertaking. In the multicultural organisation the form and nature of

22

http://www.vestas.com/


multilingualism depend on factors such as organisational level (e.g. global, regional, national, local, individual), setting (e.g. parent company, subsidiary) and unit (e.g. function, position) (Tange and Lauring, 2009). Therefore, I have opted for an in-depth study of English usage among individual language users in one specific department rather than a broad view of the organisation. The department is Vestas’ Sustainability department, which will be introduced below.

3.1.1 The Sustainability department

The Sustainability department (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sustainability’) is placed under one of Vestas’ 14 business units: Vestas People & Culture. Sustainability consists of three functional areas: 1) Corporate Social Responsibility (hereinafter referred to as ‘CSR’); 2) Health, Safety & Environment (hereinafter referred to as ‘HSE’); and Language Management (hereinafter referred to as ‘LM’). The department is placed in Randers, but has regional offices in North America, Spain and Singapore. Sustainability is a group function in the sense that the department operates globally on sustainability issues such as corporate social responsibility, health, safety and environment. Furthermore, language management issues are placed under Sustainability. The placement of language management under Sustainability originates from a need to ensure that important safety and work environment documentation such as training programmes and work instructions are translated into local languages either due to local workers’ inadequacy in English or local legal requirements.

Sustainability currently employs foreign employees. Among others graduates attending Vestas’ two-year graduate programme, during which the graduates work in eight-month modules at three different Vestas locations. Furthermore, colleagues from regional offices abroad visit the department in Randers regularly. Hence there is a need for the use of English in daily in-house communication and meetings in addition to the global corporate-wide activities on e-mail and telephone.

As such Sustainability operates at the global level, as a parent company department placed in Randers under the business unit People & Culture.

3.2 Research methodology

The research methodology section has been divided into four sub-sections in an attempt to offer information on 1) data collection, 2) the respondents, 3) the interview guide, and 4) validity separately.

3.2.1 Data collection

The empirical data for my thesis were collected in qualitative semi-structured interviews with eight respondents from Sustainability. I have chosen qualitative interviewing in an attempt to focus on the individual language user, and I have chosen a semi-structured style of interviewing in an attempt to keep some structure although still being very open (Gillham, 2000). The semi-structured style of interviewing allowed me to focus on my research questions but at the same time maintain an exploratory approach.

Six of the interviews were face-to-face interviews. The face-to-face interviews were the preferred form for my investigation, since they offer the highest degree of insight and understanding. Two of the respondents were not accessible face-to-face, since they were placed in China and Spain respectively.

23


However, I chose to include the respondents in the investigation, since they seemed to be able to offer valuable insight from the foreign employees’ perspective. Those two interviews were conducted by telephone. All interviews were conducted on the basis of an interview guide (appendix 1), which offered me the possibility of focus and structure during the interviews. The interview guide was sent to the two telephone interview respondents before the interview in an attempt to improve the quality of the interview, which may easily be reduced when you are not face-to-face. The other respondents were briefly introduced to the interview guide immediately before the interview was conducted. Probes to clarify or extend the response and prompts to remind respondents of points they had not mentioned were used in an attempt to encourage respondents during the interview (Gillham, 2000). The probes and prompts used in the interviews were inspired by the findings reviewed in Chapter 2.

All interviews were tape-recorded and the data collected amounted to six full transcripts of the face-to-face interviews and one full transcript of the first telephone interview. In addition to the transcripts I currently kept a ‘logbook’, which helped me focus on any themes emerging from the interviews and served as a basis for a thematic analysis of the transcripts. The second telephone interview was only partly transcribed due to tape recorder problems and bad sound quality. However, the first part of the interview, which was not tape recorded, was recapitulated at the end of the interview. Furthermore, detailed notes of the whole interview were made immediately after the interview, when I found out that in general the quality of the tape-recording was bad. I find that these measures made the interview adequately valuable to be included in the overall data analysis, although no direct quotations were used from this specific interview. Copies of the transcripts are enclosed (appendix 2).

Five of the respondents were Danish, which means that five of the interviews were conducted in Danish, the common mother tongue of both the interviewer and the respondents. The remaining three respondents were Swiss, Spanish and German respectively. Since I, the interviewer, is not fluent in neither Spanish nor German, the interviews with the non-Danish respondents were conducted in the corporate language English. Welch and Piekkari (2006) suggest that the role of language in qualitative interviewing in international business is fundamental. They advocate that interviewers reflect on the role of foreign languages, and they discuss how the use of a corporate language in an interview may lead to reduced data quality when using a non-native language of the interviewee. However, the language issue was never brought up with the non-Danish respondents. English seemed the natural choice and the respondents seemed comfortable in using English. By using English the non-Danish respondents and I as an interviewer ‘faced a mutual linguistic challenge by operating in a non-native language’ (2006: 422). However, the data quality may be somewhat reduced in the form of a certain lack of ‘accuracy and authenticity’ (2006: 429) compared to the Danish mother tongue interviews. But I sought to meet this linguistic drawback by asking clarifying questions to a greater extent than I did in the mother tongue interviews, and I find that it is important to include non-Danish respondents’ perspective in the investigation.

To recapitulate on the form of the interviews the five face-to-face interviews with the Danish respondents offered the highest degree of accuracy, authenticity, rapport-building and shared understanding. The face-to-face interview with the Swiss respondent may not have offered the same extent of accuracy, authenticity, rapport-building and shared understanding due to the linguistic

24


challenge of operating in the non-native language English. Furthermore, the two telephone interviews with the Spanish and the German respondents respectively did not offer the quality of face-to-face interviews and were further limited by the linguistic challenge and, especially in the case of one interview, bad recording quality. However, in spite of the drawbacks of the English language interviews they offered a valuable contribution to the investigation.

3.2.2 The respondents

The sample of respondents chosen for my investigation represents the different organisational levels within Sustainability: vice president level (one Danish in-house respondent), management level (one Danish in-house respondent), functional level (three Danish in-house respondents), and regional level (one Spanish respondent placed in Spain). Furthermore, the respondents include two ex-graduates (one Swiss and one German) who worked in-house in Sustainability for eight months, but now work in other Vestas departments. They represent also different levels of seniority, and the average seniority is four years in the company.

The respondents offered in-depth information on the use of English as a corporate language in Sustainability, which is what I opted for in my investigation. However, since the respondents do not work in a closed Sustainability network, their views and experiences sometimes extend to a more broad view of the organisation. They may also put their Sustainability experiences in perspective and compare with experiences in other departments. I have chosen to include the data on the broad view of the organisation in my analysis, since they put the data on Sustainability in perspective and offer a glance, although a very limited one, into the use of English in Vestas in general.

As mentioned in the sub-section on data collection all respondents were non-native English speakers, which means that the findings are limited to their perspective and do not include any native English speakers’ side of the story.

Before moving on to the analysis of the data I find it relevant to introduce the interview guide which served as a basis for my interviews.

3.2.3 The interview guide

The interview guide (appendix 1) was developed in an attempt to provide a connection between the theoretical and empirical parts of my thesis, and it offered me the possibility of focus and structure during the interviews. The interview guide was divided into three categories of questions: 1) English usage; 2) corporate language and cohesion; and 3) communication, knowledge- sharing and social interaction.

The first category, English usage, addressed questions on the respondents’ awareness and definition of a corporate language. The purpose of these questions was to establish a mutual understanding of the concept of corporate language between the respondents and the interviewer. Furthermore, this category addressed questions on the respondents’ English usage. The purpose of these questions was to invite respondents to offer insider information on English usage among the employees of the

25


Sustainability department. Feely and Harzing (2003:39) define three language barrier dimensions in a multinational company: language diversity, language penetration and language sophistication. Because my focus is on English usage, I find that the language diversity dimension is not relevant for my investigation. However, I find the language penetration dimension and the language sophistication dimension relevant. Feely and Harzing (ibid.) define language penetration as ‘the number of functions and the number of levels within those functions that are engaged in cross-lingual communication’ and language sophistication as ‘the complexity and refinement of the language skills required’. An analysis of the penetration and the sophistication of English in Sustainability might then serve as a basis for the remaining part of the analysis.

The second category, corporate language and cohesion, was meant to address the management perspective of the use of English as a corporate language. The purpose of these questions was to invite respondents to offer insider information on any consequences, positive or negative, for the cohesion within the company.

The third category, communication, knowledge-sharing and social interaction, was meant to address the sociolinguistic perspective of the use of English as a corporate language. The purpose of these questions was to invite respondents to offer insider information on any consequences, positive or negative, for the communication, the knowledge-sharing and social interaction.

In addition to the analysis of English usage the data collected offered the possibility of a thematic analysis. As mentioned in the sub-section on data collection I used a ‘logbook’ to trace and maintain focus on themes emerging during the interviews. The ‘logbook’ notes and a systematic analysis of the transcripts revealed four themes, which will be analysed in the following chapter. Hence the analysis of the data and the discussion attempt to reflect the theoretical parts of my thesis.

3.2.4 Validity

The transcripts of the interviews as they were conducted in Danish and English respectively are enclosed (appendix 2). The statements of Danish respondents included in the below analysis have been translated into English. In the process of translation I have sought to be as loyal as possible towards the respondents and opted for a source-text oriented translation.

While qualitative interviewing offers a richness of insight, it does have its limits as far as validity is concerned. Gillham (2000) discusses the limits of interview data and concludes:

The relationship between beliefs, opinions, knowledge and actual behaviour is not a straightforward one. What people say in an interview is not the whole picture; adequate research and, in particular, adequate theorizing, needs to take account of that. (2000: 94).

The extent of my investigation does not offer a study on ‘actual behaviour’, but merely attempts to reflect the ‘beliefs, opinions and knowledge’ of the respondents.

26


4. Analysis of data

The interviews among employees in Sustainability took place during October 2009. They were conducted on the basis of the interview guide presented in the previous chapter on data and methodology. The interview guide questions were divided into three categories, which addressed questions on 1) English usage; 2) corporate language and cohesion; and 3) communication, knowledge-sharing and social interaction.

The first category of questions, English usage, sought to offer information on the respondents’ awareness of a corporate language and definition of the concept to establish a mutual understanding of the concept between the respondents and the interviewer. Furthermore, these questions invited respondents to offer insider information on the penetration and sophistication of English in Sustainability, which might then provide a basis for the remaining part of the analysis. Hence the first section of my analysis below will examine the respondents’ English usage.

Once this picture has been established the remaining part of my analysis will address four themes emerging from the respondents’ replies and reflections: 1) English language consistency; 2) proficiency in English; 3) thin communication; and 4) a global language.

4.1 English usage

For structural reasons the first section of the analysis, English usage, has been divided into the three categories mentioned above: 1) awareness of a corporate language and definition of the concept; 2) the penetration of English; and 3) the sophistication of English.

4.1.1 Awareness of a corporate language and definition of the concept

Vestas’ official decision on the use of English as a corporate language is stated in the introduction to Vestas’ English Language Guide (enclosure 1), which means that the employees would either need to be familiar with the English Language Guide or have been told about the decision to know that the use of English as a corporate language is a conscious choice made by Vestas. Since the concept of corporate language has not been defined in the English Language Guide the employees may not be aware of what the use of a corporate language implies. Therefore, reflections on the awareness of a corporate language and a definition of the concept might serve as a point of departure for the interviews and might also provide a basis for the remaining part of analysis.

One respondent (linguistic coordinator, Danish) is aware that Vestas has made an actual decision on the use of English as a corporate language. She is familiar with the English Language Guide, and tells that the guide states that English is the corporate language, but it does not define the concept or stipulate any guidelines for using the corporate language.

The other respondents are aware that English is the corporate language, but do not seem to recall any official or conscious corporate decision. One respondent explains:

27


I have never been told officially. It comes naturally along the way. If you write an e-mail in Danish to a Dane and think well this is OK, it will soon come back to you and you will write it in English so it can be forwarded to non-Danish speaking colleagues. This is the way you learn it. I was never told when I started that now you need to pay attention to use our corporate language English (CSR advisor, Danish).

One non-Danish respondent is aware that English is the corporate language now that he works for Vestas in Denmark. But earlier when he worked for Vestas in Central Europe he did not think of English as a corporate language, since English, it seems, was not used consistently as a common language. He explains:

When in Central Europe I do not know if I was conscious. Yes, I knew that with English you would communicate outside Germany, but within Germany of course everybody talked German. And also at higher level, the management area, there were some people not talking English or understanding English and refusing to use English as a language (ex-graduate, Swiss).

None of the respondents have a clear definition of the concept of corporate language. However, they all seem to understand corporate language as the language used for global corporate-wide communication, which does not necessarily comprise external communication with for example customers. One respondent (vice president, Danish) explains how much of the communication with customers takes place in English, but ‘preferably we meet our customers at eye-to-eye level in their local language’.

However, the spread of English as a corporate language does not comprise any local place within the organisation. One respondent (safety specialist, Danish) explains how technical manuals on the erection of the mills have to be translated into the local language in some countries. Either for safety reasons, because the local workers do not have sufficient English skills, or for legal reasons, because local authorities demand so. Another respondent (vice president, Danish) tells that much of their corporate documentation such as Vestas’ in-house magazine and their Code of Conduct are translated into several local languages to ensure that corporate communication is disseminated throughout the organisation.

One respondent offers her own definition of a corporate language in Vestas:

We use [the English document] for our primary documentation [..] it is the valid document. Then we may have translations, but you can say that [English] is the baseline for the way we communicate as far as documentation is concerned, and when we speak [..] When we are gathered in international forums, well, then English is the language spoken (HSE director, Danish).

Hence the data suggest that in practice English is used as a basis for global corporate-wide documentation, which is then translated into local languages. Furthermore, English is used for global corporate-wide e-mail and oral communication. However, there did not seem to be a common awareness of a conscious decision to use English as a corporate language or a common awareness of a definition of the concept.

28


4.1.2 The penetration of English

English seems to be widely used in Sustainability. The respondents represent all the functional areas of Sustainability: CSR, HSE, and LM. They represent the different organisational levels within the department. All functions and levels seem to have tasks and coordinating activities which imply global corporate-wide communication with colleagues and employees. One respondent (HSE director, Danish) explains that Sustainability operates as a corporate group function which serves the whole organisation, and the department’s primary network is international. She continues that ‘far more than fifty percent of my communication takes place in English’. Another respondent (vice president, Danish) tells that his management group is international including an American, a Spaniard and a Swede and that he speaks as much English as he speaks Danish.

All the Danish respondents explain how they use English every day ‘more or less all the time’ and write most e-mails in English, also to Danish colleagues in case the e-mail needs to be forwarded to a non-Danish colleague later. One respondent tells about a work group on safety consisting of only Danish people and how the presentation she had just prepared for the group was in English:

We were only Danes present, and the presentation I had prepared was in English. And then you may ask why – we spoke Danish – but the presentation was in English, of course, because when it is distributed throughout the organisation it needs to be in English since there are many non-Danish speaking people – and why do things twice (safety specialist, Danish).

Several Danish respondents tell that the terminology used within their specific areas is usually in English, and they may not even be familiar with the Danish register. One respondent (CSR advisor, Danish) explains that his studies were conducted in English, and therefore he does not know the Danish register and ‘prefers to use English when discussing professional CSR matters’.

The non-Danish respondents tell that they speak no or only little Danish and that they use English all the time when communicating with their Danish colleagues.

Hence the data suggest a high penetration of English.

4.1.3 The sophistication of English

The respondents are specialists within the areas of corporate social responsibility; health, safety and environment; and language management respectively. They operate worldwide and it seems that they all need to manage a high level of sophistication in the English register used within their professional areas. One respondent (linguistic coordinator, Danish) tells that ‘it becomes quite complicated’ when they communicate about the translation management system and Vestas’ terminology database. Another respondent (HSE director, Danish) tells how they need to be extremely aware of different meanings of specific English terms in different national and cultural contexts to avoid serious misunderstandings within the safety area. She mentions the concept of risk as an example, and how she has experienced different interpretations of what the concept means and how you ‘may end up communicating something quite different from what you meant to communicate’.

29


In general the respondents’ English usage seems to comprise both daily e-mail correspondence and more formal oral discussions and meetings with colleagues, employees and superiors throughout the organisation. The discussions and meetings may take place face-to-face, but often also as telephone conferences, where the respondents need to negotiate consensus on cross-organisational matters. English usage also includes oral and written presentations to colleagues, employees and superiors throughout the organisation and the preparation of official corporate documentation as explained by one respondent:

I have just made a draft for a safety standard, a minimum safety standard, which amounts to about forty pages or so. This must be communicated clearly and accurately. Therefore, I use my network for feedback [..] And [the language workers] have a look at it, mostly the language (safety specialist, Danish).

Hence the data suggest that the complexity and refinement of the respondents’ English skills need to be quite high.

The analysis on English usage suggests that although English is widely used in Sustainability there did not seem to be a common awareness of a conscious decision to use English as a corporate language or a common awareness of a definition of the concept. Nor did this seem to be the case in Vestas in general. There seemed to be a high penetration of English in Sustainability, and a need for sophisticated English skills.

The above section reveals a picture of the awareness of a corporate language in Sustainability and the penetration and sophistication of English, which provides a basis for the remaining part of the analysis. The following section will deal with the first theme of the analysis, English language consistency.

4.2 English language consistency

The English language consistency theme is the most extensive of the four themes. English language consistency as a concept encompasses ‘to what extent English is used in personal, work-related and management communication’ (Lauring and Selmer, 2009: 8). The data reveal information on English language consistency in Sustainability, but also, to some extent, in Vestas in general. Hence the section on English language consistency has been divided into two sub-sections: 1) consistency in Sustainability and 2) consistency in Vestas in general. The sub-section on consistency in Sustainability has been further divided into two parts in an attempt to reveal information on the inclusion of non-Danish colleagues and code-switching from English to Danish respectively.

4.2.1 Consistency in Sustainability

Inclusion of non-Danish colleagues

The number of non-Danish employees working at Vestas’ offices in Denmark has increased strongly, especially over the last four years. The globalisation of Vestas has resulted in an increase in the mobility of employees across the boarders. One respondent (vice president, Danish) recalls that 10 years ago Vestas had almost no foreign employees in Denmark. The company expatriated Danish employees to

30


their locations abroad, but there was no flow of foreign employees to the headquarters in Denmark. This has changed. The Danish employees in Sustainability seem to have experienced this development in the mobility of their foreign colleagues. One respondent recalls (safety specialist, Danish) that three years ago the president of their business unit talked to them about the globalisation and development of the company and anticipated that in a few years they would all speak English at the office and during lunchtime. At the time, she recalls, this seemed unrealistic, but in less than two years ‘we did’.

Another respondent (CSR advisor, Danish) tells that when he started working in Sustainability two and a half years ago he had no foreign colleagues, but in connection with the increase in employees in general they now have many foreign colleagues. Also one respondent (safety specialist, Danish) tells that they are recruiting more foreigners.

The Danish respondents all seem very conscious of the importance of including the foreigners in their professional and social network by using English consistently when foreigners are around. But they also explain how it was difficult at the beginning, but gets better and better now that they are more used to having foreign colleagues around. One respondent tells:

I think we are good at speaking English with each other in our department. We have, I mean, when we are in Denmark and we are Danes, I think we have an obligation to include foreign colleagues in our social conversations and, well, not exclude them by starting to use our mother tongue [..] I think most people really try to use English, and use it the best they can, and then you will have to ask if there is something you do not understand or vice versa, and give time to express yourself [..] We need to take into account that we have colleagues who do not speak Danish. We have a social gathering every Friday, which always takes place in English. We address the matter (linguistic coordinator, Danish).

Another respondent recalls her own experiences when working abroad, which makes her very aware of the importance of being inclusive:

We make much of it here because we get more and more international colleagues. I make much of starting to speak English even when we discuss private matters, because, if not, you exclude the [foreign] employees from the social network in the department [..] I am in the process of recruiting foreigners myself, and it does not work if we discuss private matters in Danish. I have worked abroad myself and I know how you are excluded socially when all your colleagues speak a foreign language you do not understand, even if it is only private things (HSE director, Danish).

One respondent (CSR advisor, Danish) refers to Sustainability’s Friday morning gatherings and recalls how it has become more natural to speak English and include the foreigners now compared to earlier. Earlier they always started by asking if any foreigners were present, now they do not ask but just start speaking English.

The Danish respondents also seem to be conscious of the inclusion of foreign colleagues in their written communication. One respondent (safety specialist, Danish) tells that when she communicates in writing with her professional network, which includes both Danish and non-Danish employees, she writes in

31


English and not in Danish for her Danish colleagues and English for her non-Danish colleagues. Another respondent (linguistic coordinator, Danish) tells that when she writes the minutes of meeting from their work group meetings on terminology she writes them in English although at present the work group consists of only Danish people. The minutes of meeting are prepared in English so ‘any interested non-Danish colleagues can read them’.

The Danish respondents have foreign colleagues in Sustainability placed abroad, who are not able to attend all in-house meetings due to the physical distance. However, it seems that although they may be only Danes attending the in-house meeting physically they would not exclude this one foreign colleague from the meeting for linguistic reasons. One respondent (safety specialist, Danish) tells that ‘we would never hold the meeting in Danish and brief her later, she will be included in the meeting and everything will be in English’.

It also seems that the Danish respondents would not exclude their foreign colleagues in their search for specific knowledge for linguistic reasons. They would naturally go to the person they find most competent in the specific field with no regard to nationality. One respondent (vice president, Danish) explains that he ‘focuses on the competence and not the nationality’. The non-Danish respondents confirm that they do not feel excluded when it comes to specific knowledge-sharing.

However, although there seems to be a high level of English language consistency in Sustainability, the respondents do express concern about the consistency in social situations in spite of their good intentions. One respondent (HSE director, Danish) recalls that some time ago they had invited feedback from their foreign colleagues on the consistency in using English. The foreigners had told them that when discussing business the use of English was consistent but ‘everything else was in Danish’, so when it comes to social interaction the foreigners did not really feel included.

Two of the non-Danish respondents did not seem to recognise the feeling of exclusion. One of them (HSE regional director, Spanish) finds that her Danish colleagues are ‘quite consistent’ in the use of English. The other (ex-graduate, Swiss) recalls that ‘as soon as they saw there was someone not understanding Danish they would not talk Danish’.

Another non-Danish respondent (ex-graduate, German) felt somewhat more excluded and recalled a meeting, where someone started a presentation in Danish and she had to remind her Danish colleagues that they were two foreigners present.

The above analysis on the inclusion of non-Danish colleagues suggests that the Danish Sustainability employees are very conscious about including their foreign colleagues and conscious about the importance of using English when their foreign colleagues are around. They also seem to have gained linguistic and cultural experience from having had foreign colleagues around for quite some time, and some of the Danish respondents have gained experience also from employment in Vestas’ foreign locations. However, they do express concern about English language consistency in connection with social interaction. One respondent (linguistic coordinator, Danish) tells: ‘it does go wrong from time to time, even with the best intentions, you have to admit that’.

32


It seems that the phenomenon of code-switching occurs from time to time, at least in social interaction. The phenomenon of code-switching from English to Danish will be further dealt with below.

Code-switching from English to Danish

Code-switching occurs when non-native English speakers, such as the Danish employees in Sustainability, ‘huddle together and revert to talking between themselves in their native language’ (Feely and Harzing, 2002: 10). As revealed above code-switching does occur among the Danish employees from time to time, in spite of the good intentions to speak English consistently and include their foreign colleagues. In general the respondents seem confident with their own adequacy in English, and the section on English usage reveals that the penetration of English and the need for sophisticated English skills are high. However, in an attempt to understand why this phenomenon occurs, the respondents offered an insight into what happens when they switch from English to Danish themselves. At the same time the non-Danish respondents offered an insight into how they feel when excluded from discussions because of code-switching.

In most situations in Sustainability, both professional and social situations, there is a majority of Danish people present and only a few foreigners. Sometimes they have telephone conferences with only Danish people in the conference room and one or a few foreigners attending on the phone. One Danish respondent tells about such a situation and how it may feel a bit awkward to speak English with your Danish colleagues, but that you get used to it when more experienced:

We are used to speaking Danish together, and suddenly you have to switch to English. But after a year now I think I have got used to it, but unconsciously you may pass a remark in Danish to the colleague next to you. [The foreigners] are nice enough to be tolerant (linguistic coordinator, Danish).

All the Danish respondents seem to express the same feeling of comfort when talking about code-switching to Danish. They seem to be confident about their English proficiency, but express a feeling of comfort when speaking with their Danish colleagues in their mother tongue, a feeling which seems somehow to be lost when they have to include the foreigners and speak English:

We have a tendency to switch back to our own language, because it is quicker and easier. And you can quickly clarify things without having to think too much [..] I just think it is too much trouble, it is more demanding, it requires more from you, I do not think it is awkward - at the beginning [..] perhaps [..] I just think [speaking Danish] is easier [..] there is something - there is something socially underneath (HSE director, Danish).

One Danish respondent mentions that the reason is not unwillingness towards using the common corporate language, but it seems easier and more practical to speak Danish with your Danish colleagues. He continues that it may seem a bit awkward to speak English to a group of Danish colleagues:

You have another frame of reference when you discuss something in Danish with a colleague. When you have a colleague you only speak English with, well, you manage, it is more when you

33


are more people together, then you may have a tendency to switch back to Danish, if there are too many Danish people gathered (CSR advisor, Danish).

Another Danish respondent (vice president, Danish) considers the logic behind preferring your mother tongue to a second language such as English, although your adequacy in English is not a problem: ‘It is human. It is always easier to use your mother tongue. Using a second language is kind of staying in a non-comfort zone’.

However, as already mentioned it seems that code-switching most often occurs in social or less formal situations. One Danish respondent (CSR advisor, Danish) explains that he does not experience code-switching from English to Danish in business meetings: ‘In business discussions the use of English comes natural, but in social situations the corporate language is a challenge’.

The Danish respondents seem aware that their foreign colleagues feel uncomfortable with the code-switching situations. One Danish respondent recalls a situation with a German colleague who knew some Danish:

There was a German present who knew a little Danish, so we might as well switch to Danish. We did not mean no harm, but it may have been an untimely remark, because it signalled that it was kind of a burden that he was present (CSR advisor, Danish).

The non-Danish respondents express a feeling of exclusion and lack of knowledge-sharing when their Danish colleagues switch from English to Danish in social situations. However, at the same time they seem to somehow accept that code-switching occurs in social situations where a majority of Danish colleagues are present, which is illustrated by comments from two non-Danish respondents:

(1) The only way I feel a bit excluded, but I really take it completely on my shoulder, is when they have these desk talks, on work related issues that could also be relevant for my work, in Danish, and I cannot follow. But I accept it, and if I hear something in Danish, of course, I will jump in and ask (ex-graduate, Swiss).

(2) Of course, if they are all Danish then they use Danish, but if there is somebody from abroad then they switch to English. Maybe during the breaks or lunch they sit in small groups and they go back to Danish, but that is quite normal [..] They are quite consistent (HSE regional director, Spanish).

Another non-Danish respondent (ex-graduate, German) seems to be more personal about the code-switching situation. She seems to express that it is a question of attitude rather than adequacy in English. Her experience seems to be that proficiency is not the problem, because her Danish colleagues are ‘good at English’. Rather she seems to find that the problem is that ‘they do not make the extra effort it is to switch to English’.

The above analysis on the consistency in Sustainability suggests that the Sustainability employees are very conscious about including their foreign colleagues and conscious about being consistent in using English when their foreign colleagues are around. However, code-switching occurs, at least in

34


connection with social interaction. The non-Danish respondents feel excluded in those situations, but either accept the situation or in one case seem to question whether it is reasonable and fair.

But the data also reveal information about English language consistency in Vestas in general, which will be dealt with in the following sub-section.

4.2.2 Consistency in Vestas in general

Some of the respondents have worked only in Sustainability. Therefore, their views and experiences are focused on this department. However, others have worked or now work in other departments of Vestas. Hence they offer views and experiences on the use of English as a corporate language in other departments as well. Furthermore, the more senior of the respondents offer a broad view on the use of English as a corporate language now and how the spread of English has developed over the years.

Firstly, while Sustainability seems to be inclusive and conscious of the importance of using English when foreign colleagues are around, the situation may be different in other departments. One non-Danish respondent explains that his Danish Sustainability colleagues were quite consistent in using English, which is not the case in the department he works in now:

It is not the case that everybody just talks English when English people are around. If you have larger meetings with many people participating then, of course, you will ask if there is somebody who would like to have English as a language, and then they will adapt. But in small kind of cross desk communication, on work related issues, Danish is often still used rather than English [..] In Sustainability it was more English (ex-graduate, Swiss).

Secondly, the more senior of the respondents explain how the use of English in general is not consistent. But the consistency has improved over the years and requirements for English skills have increased in connection with recruitment. One respondent (safety specialist, Danish) tells how things have changed enormously since the appointment of their present CEO and how their ‘focus has changed from being a big Danish international company to a small global player’, but she continues that ‘when in Denmark the focus is on Denmark’. Danish seems to have a high status in the organisation. As one respondent explains:

It is not that when you spot the least sign of something foreign you switch [to English]. There is still a little – and a Swedish colleague – maybe Danish will do. I also often see too many e-mails in Danish, and when suddenly you need to involve [foreign colleagues], they receive an e-mail in which the first half is in Danish and the remaining part is in English. Then they won’t have a chance. This still happens far too often (vice president, Danish).

The respondent (vice president, Danish) further tells that a Danish variant of English has become known in the company as ‘Danglish’. This variant of English with a Danish accent has become known because there are many Danish people in the organisation, both in Denmark and in the company’s foreign locations. One non-Danish respondent (ex-graduate, German) now working in Vestas’ office in China

35


seems to find that while the Danish language was prevalent when she worked in Denmark it is still prevalent even at the office in China because of the many Danish employees.

However, another senior respondent (HSE director, Danish) tells how she has experienced an enormous development in the spread of English over the past four years, and especially over the past two to three years it has become ‘acceptable to write in English to a Danish colleague’.

She also tells that the spread of English when preparing written documentation has improved over the years, but the use of English is still not consistent. Furthermore, the further you go into the organisation there is still a need for local languages when it comes to written documentation like for example safety instructions:

Now most documents are in English. Two or three years ago much of the documentation was in Danish [..] But we have become much more stringent in writing in English. It is easier to get information [..] But it is obvious that the further you go into the organisation then [..] there is a need for local languages (HSE director, Danish).

As stated in the English Language Guide Vestas has officially decided to use English as a corporate language. However, the analysis on consistency in Vestas in general suggests that although English may have a superior status local languages, including Danish, have a high status in the organisation as well.

One non-Danish respondent offers his view on the consistency in the use of English as a corporate language in Vestas in general, and he compares the present department he works in with Sustainability on the inclusion of foreign colleagues and the consistency in using English. He explains how his present department seems to be less inclusive and less consistent in their use of English and concludes:

It depends on your personality if you speak the corporate language with foreign colleagues or not, right, so it has not that much to do with professionalism and rules from the top saying: you need to talk English now. It really is the personality (ex-graduate, Swiss).

English may have a superior status as the corporate language, but local languages have a high status as well. Furthermore, the openness and willingness, it seems, to include your foreign colleagues also affect English language consistency.

The analysis on English language consistency suggests that the Danish Sustainability employees are very conscious about the inclusion of foreign colleagues and the importance of English language consistency. This consciousness seems to have developed together with the globalisation of Vestas over the last few years and the increase in the mobility of people within the organisation. However, the Danish employees express some concern about code-switching from English to Danish. They seem to express rather a feeling of comfort when code-switching to Danish than a feeling of inadequacy in English. This phenomenon results in the exclusion of their foreign colleagues in those situations, which is somehow accepted by two of the non-Danish respondents. One non-Danish respondent expresses more a feeling of disappointment about the code-switching situation.

36


The analysis on consistency in Vestas in general suggests that English may have a superior status as the corporate language, but the status of local languages and the openness and willingness to include foreign colleagues affect English language consistency as well.

The analysis on code-switching revealed that the Danish respondents expressed a feeling of comfort when allowed to speak their mother tongue with their Danish colleagues rather than a feeling of inadequacy in English. However, the data reveal information on the proficiency in English as well, which will be dealt with in the following section.

4.3 Proficiency in English

All the respondents are non-native English speakers and as such they offer an insight into the proficiency of non-native English speakers. In addition the respondents also offer an insight into native English speakers’ advantages and disadvantages in a non-native English speaking environment, and into the respondents’ own rhetorical skills when using English. Hence the proficiency section is divided into three sub-sections in an attempt to reveal information on 1) non-native English speakers’ proficiency, 2) native English speakers in a non-native English speakers’ environment, and 3) non-native English speakers’ rhetorical skills.

4.3.1 Non-native English speakers’ proficiency

The majority of English users in Sustainability are non-native English speakers. Again it seems that the Sustainability people are quite inclusive when it comes to the different English skills among non-native English speakers. One respondent (linguistic coordinator, Danish) explains that there are different levels of proficiency in English among the in-house employees, but ‘since we are all second language users I think we give people time to express themselves, because we know that it can be difficult’. So there seems to be an understanding among the non-native English speakers in Sustainability that since the majority of their colleagues are second language users when speaking English you need to ‘pay a little more attention’.

However, several of the Danish respondents seem to find that especially telephone conferences with their foreign colleagues abroad may cause miscommunication. Feely and Harzing define miscommunication as a situation where second language users’ lack of competence in the language results in ‘confused, incomplete and ambiguous communication’ (2002: 9). The fact that the Danish respondents’ foreign colleagues are not present physically seems to increase the language barrier:

Sometimes you can hear that there may be misunderstandings between some persons, because what you want to express may not be expressed as you want to and may not be correctly understood at the other end - you need to clarify (linguistic coordinator, Danish).

But the different levels of proficiency also seem to be a challenge at physical meetings. Several of the Danish respondents tell how they often experience that something goes wrong in the communication because of the language barrier, although they use English. Many times they refer to their Asian

37


colleagues and how the communication, although in English, can be a challenge. They offer some views on cultural challenges as well, but also a language dimension:

Sometimes things become somewhat simplified, if you need to explain them to somebody who is not adequate in English. You then use more simple expressions, and it becomes very black and white, yes and no, good and bad, and you lose the nuances of the language [..] I consider how to explain the matter, which is rather complicated, but you really need to – I mean if we spoke the same language, we would easily be able to discuss this matter including all the subtleties [..] but because of the [corporate] language we speak, we have to make it more simple than it actually is, and then the nuances will have to come later – the sentences become very short and precise (CSR advisor, Danish).

The Danish respondents mention how they often ask their Asian colleagues to sum up on agreements at the end of the meeting to ensure that they have understood each other ‘also because of the language barrier, because so many things can go wrong in the communication’ (HSE director, Danish).

The non-Danish respondents also offer views on different levels of proficiency in Vestas in general, and that English inadequacy may be a problem. But they all agree that ‘the Scandinavians are very good at English’ and ‘the Danes speak very nice English’.

One respondent also mentions challenges in connection with different accents of English in continuation of explaining about the challenges of different levels of proficiency:

Dependent on the different levels of proficiency in the individual countries [English] may cause both misunderstandings and problems in the communication. Including our telephone conferences with different accents – an Indian may be very difficult to understand both for an American and a German, although we speak English (HSE director, Danish).

Hence the data suggest that in some situations the different levels of proficiency pose a challenge to the communication between the non-native English speakers, which may result in more stiff communication. The lack of ability to either express or understand the nuances of the language seems to result in misunderstandings and misinterpretations, which have to be clarified.

But the views and experiences offered by the respondents on proficiency also include reflections on the native English speakers. One respondent seems to find that English is not an ‘equal tool’ for everyone because of the different levels of proficiency and that the native English speakers have an advantage in an English speaking environment:

It is obvious that if there is an Italian, a Spaniard, two Americans, and one Dane present in a meeting, then the Americans will clearly blurt out most, because it is their mother tongue, and it is easier for them to get their message across (HSE director, Danish).

The following sub-section deals with the native English speakers’ situation in an English speaking environment compared to the non-native English speakers’ situation.

38


4.3.2 Native English speakers in a non-native English speakers’ environment

In connection with proficiency the respondents reflect on the native English speakers’ advantage of speaking their mother tongue, which seems to cause a certain extent of power distortion. Feely and Harzing define power distortion as a situation where a second language user accommodates to a first language user’s language and has ‘relinquished some of the control over the relationship’ (2002: 11). The respondents seem to find that the native English speakers may not always pay attention to the difficulty second language users may have in expressing themselves in English. On the other hand, one respondent (linguistic coordinator, Danish) explains how the native English speakers’ proficiency in English may help you to pick the right words in your conversation with them.

One non-Danish respondent offers his view on native English speakers’ advantage not only in terms of proficiency but also in terms of colleagues’ and superiors’ perception of their competence in general:

They can express themselves much better than the others, and they also, I mean, they are perceived as being very competent, which probably has to do with language [..] They can really use all the facets of English that you are supposed to use as well, and you cannot, because it is not your mother tongue. I think, therefore, people with native English skills in a non-native English environment in a global company using English as a corporate language have, of course, an advantage going beyond just being able to communicate (ex-graduate, Swiss).

While some of the respondents do not seem to find it more difficult to understand and talk to native English speakers others seem to express uneasiness when talking to native English speakers compared to when they talk to other non-native English speakers. Especially when you are together with a majority of native English speakers ‘there are things you do not understand’. The uneasiness seems to be caused either by strong English accents or the fact that the non-native English speakers are used to ‘a lower level of English than the level of native English speakers’. One non-Danish respondent offers her view on the use of English in an international company with many non-native English speakers:

The fact that this is an international company means that we speak English with people who usually do not speak English, which makes the level of English lower than that of native speakers. Understanding may be a bit more challenging when I am talking to Australian people or native English speakers who have a strong accent - that can be a challenge - also because they are not that aware that people may have some difficulties with English, so they just take for granted that everybody has the same easiness with the language (HSE regional director, Spanish).

On the other hand, one respondent (vice president, Danish) reflects on the disadvantage that native English speakers may have, if they are not aware of the difficulty non-native English speakers may have with the language. He refers to telephone conferences conducted on a regular basis with participants from China, India, US and most of Europe, where the native English participants seem to lose valuable feedback from their non-native English speaking colleagues, because the native English participants seem to ‘speak over the heads of some of our colleagues who are not so good at English – and [the native English participants] do not notice’.

39


In general the respondents seem to find that the native English speakers have a clear advantage when it comes to rhetorical skills compared to their non-native English speaking colleagues. The respondents seem to experience that their native English colleagues can explain things more vividly, and they can ‘stage’ their presentation in a way the non-native English speakers cannot. One respondent (CSR advisor, Danish) tells that ‘when it is not your mother tongue you are straight to the point, you do not stage, you are more direct, and you are focused on getting the key message across’.

The respondents also reflect on the influence of personality. Some people are better performers than others irrespective of their nationality and linguistic adequacy. But they seem to maintain that native English speakers do have a linguistic advantage because they express themselves better:

It depends to some extent on the person, and how dominant the person is. If the person is dominant, well, clearly that person fills a lot and may easily take over and be very, very persuasive, in fluent English, in the mother tongue – they are listened to and they are in focus (HSE director, Danish).

In addition to offering their views on native English speakers’ advantages and disadvantages in an English speaking environment, the respondents, who are all non-native English speakers, offered an insight into their own assessment of rhetorical skills when using English.

4.3.3 Non-native English speakers’ rhetorical skills

Second language users may experience a loss of rhetorical skills due to inadequacy in the second language compared to when they use their mother tongue. Loss of rhetorical skills is when second language users are ‘robbed of the interpersonal skills of humour, symbolism, sensitivity, negotiation, persuasion and even coercion’ (Feely and Harzing, 2002: 10).

In their daily in-house activities and coordinating activities in general the respondents need to use English both professionally and socially. They seem to find that the use of specific technical or Vestas register is not a problem once you are familiar with your professional area and the terms and abbreviations used in Vestas. Often they do not know the corresponding Danish register. But social interaction and situations which require a high level of rhetorical skills seem to be a challenge.

One respondent offers her views on the difference in performance between native English speakers and non-native English speakers when they make presentations at business meetings:

If you hear an [English] presentation by a native English speaker and next an [English] presentation by a Dane, you have a tendency to think, perhaps, that [the first] is more persuasive. If you hear a series of presentations by non-native English speakers, I think, they appear equal. If you hear a British native English speaker or an American native English speaker make a presentation, in their mother tongue, they seem more powerful than when you make a presentation in a second language (linguistic coordinator, Danish).

Another respondent offers an insight into her own experiences when performing in English. She tells that her performance in English has improved with her professional experience in Vestas, but she still

40


experiences a linguistic inadequacy when using English for her presentations. The communication seems to become stiff and less dynamic:

I do not speak freely, I am very conscious about that, about how I become more confident with the language and get the same power when I am making a presentation [..] I do not have the same spark or the same passion, and you almost sell half with your dynamics and the way you act, and it disappears. It has become better, but [English] is clearly a barrier compared to when I make a presentation in Danish, I need much more preparation when making a presentation in English (HSE director, Danish).

Not all respondents express the feeling of limited rhetorical skills to the same extent, but they express a lack of the ability to improvise and hence a need to be better prepared when doing a presentation in English. The challenge seems to be ‘what you cannot plan or prepare’.

The analysis on proficiency in English suggests that while much of the daily in-house communication may go smoothly due to a mutual linguistic openness among the non-native English speakers, different levels of English proficiency pose a challenge for the non-native English speakers when it comes to meetings with their colleagues abroad. These meeting situations may result in less effective communication in the form of misunderstandings and misinterpretations, which have to be clarified. However, there seems to be a perception among the non-Danish respondents that Danes and Scandinavians as such have a high level of English proficiency. The analysis on proficiency in English also suggests that the native English speakers may have an advantage in expressing themselves more easily, which may result in a certain extent of power distortion. However, the native English speakers may also lose valuable knowledge, if they do not include their non-native English speaking colleagues. The native English speakers seem to have an advantage on rhetorical skills compared to their non-native speaking colleagues, who express a lack of rhetorical skills when using English.

The above analyses on English language consistency and proficiency in English suggest that use of the non-native corporate language English may have an effect on the quality of employee exchanges. The views and experiences offered by the respondents suggest that code-switching occurs; that different levels of proficiency may lead to inefficient communication; that there may be a distortion of power and rhetorical skills between native and non-native English speakers; and that the native English speakers may lose valuable knowledge.

The following section will focus further on the quality of employee exchanges by analysing the respondents’ views and experiences on informal interaction when using English.

4.4 Thin communication

Thin communication is defined as ‘the withdrawal of organisational members from informal interaction performed in a non-native, corporate language such as English’ (Tange and Lauring, 2009: 220) and may result in ‘the reduction in the quantity and quality of employee exchanges’ (2009: 226).

41


The data offer an insight into the informal interaction between people in Sustainability and in Vestas in general. It seems that a certain withdrawal does take place. Not necessarily a physical withdrawal but a withdrawal from informal discussions to some extent, which seems to reduce at least the quality of the exchange of ideas and knowledge.

One respondent (linguistic coordinator, Danish) refers to daily in-house informal interaction and her own experience when using English. She expresses a feeling of linguistic inadequacy and explains how ‘you are not always able to say what you want to say, but what you know how to say’. However, she also expresses a situation of openness in Sustainability in general to participate in informal interaction in English, and reflects on a difference in spontaneity between language workers and non-language workers:

We speak rather freely, the grammar may not be completely correct, but I think we speak quite fluently with each other, and no one holds back because of the language. It may have been different if we were only language workers, I know that from myself, I would like it to be grammatical and semantically correct before you say something, whereas if you do not have a language education, I think, you do not care so much, you just want to get the message across (linguistic coordinator, Danish).

The respondents express some extent of linguistic inadequacy in social interaction. They seem to lose some of the quality of the communication. They refer to the language barrier and the different levels of proficiency, which make communication more superficial and confined. One respondent (ex-graduate, Swiss) tells that ‘unintentionally, to a certain degree I talk less when I need to talk English than I would in Switzerland’. They mention humour as a challenge to their linguistic performance, and another respondent (HSE regional director, Spanish) reflects on the ability to make jokes in English: ‘if you are really struggling with the language then of course it is difficult and it limits your social interaction’. She tells that she has experienced situations where people completely withdrew from social interaction because of inadequacy in English, not in Sustainability but in Vestas in general.

The respondents also offer views on the influence of personality and experience. It depends on the personality ‘how much you want to invest in building up social relations’, but on the other hand they find it much more difficult ‘to build up the social part when you do not interact in your mother tongue’ and they find that it is easier ‘to open up about private and personal matters if you know exactly the right words’. Experience seems to have a positive influence on your ability to build up social relations in a non-native corporate language. The respondents seem to find the use of English in social interaction easier now than when they started working in the company. Their experience seems to have improved their English skills and their ability to interact socially with foreign colleagues, and they seem very aware that social interaction is an important element when sharing knowledge about business matters as well. One respondent offers her views on her own inadequacy some years ago, and how her English skills have improved. She compares her linguistic development with the rest of the organisation:

It may be the same for the organisation in general - something will be lost at the beginning, where you discuss only things you need to clarify, and then when your language improves, well,

42


then you start including social things and that is an important part of [business interaction], to build up social relations, that is a very important part of it (HSE director, Danish).

It seems that in their daily in-house activities people in Sustainability feel safer with the use of English in formal business interaction than in social interaction. In formal business interaction they use a familiar register, but social interaction seems to be more challenging. One respondent seems to find that social interaction, at least when many people are gathered, becomes more formal when using the non-native corporate language English compared to the native language Danish:

It is more difficult to use [English] when we have a department gathering or a social event in the department, then it gets more [..] you may call it awkward, it gets a bit more formal [..] But when we discuss business I do not think [English] is an issue because we all manage that, but when we discuss social matters then it may become a little awkward, not in business situations, meetings etc., there it is OK (CSR advisor, Danish).

Finally, it seems that withdrawal from interaction takes place not only in connection with informal interaction but also in business meetings. One respondent (vice president, Danish) reflects on withdrawal because of English in the organisation as a whole and tells that he has attended several meetings where some people seemed to withdraw from the discussions due to English inadequacy, and he recalls situations where people refrained from participating because the meeting was to take place in English.

The above analysis on thin communication suggests that at least the quality of employee exchanges in Sustainability is reduced to some extent due to the withdrawal of employees from informal interaction performed in the non-native, corporate language English. The withdrawal is not necessarily a physical withdrawal, but more often a reduction in the quality of the exchange of ideas and experiences. In Vestas in general the analysis suggests that both the quality and the quantity of employee exchanges are reduced.

However, in spite of the drawbacks of using English there seems to be a general understanding among the respondents of English as a common global language, as the common denominator available to overcome the language barrier. The respondents seem to express a feeling of unfairness when highlighting the drawbacks, because the use of English is the only alternative: ‘what else should we use?’

Therefore, the following section will deal with the respondents’ understanding of English as a global language, which is the last of the four themes emerging from the interviews.

4.5 A global language

English has the status of a global language in the sense that it has developed a special role that is recognised in every country, either as an official language or as a language which is given priority in the country’s foreign-language teaching (Crystal, 2003). The need for a global language is particularly appreciated by the international academic and business communities, and English seems to be ‘the chief auxiliary language’ for organisations worldwide (2003: 89).

43


The views on English as a global language emerged throughout the interviews. When offering their views and experiences on English language consistency, proficiency in English and thin communication the respondents often touched upon the issue of English as a global language, directly or indirectly.

As the section on English usage shows, the respondents seem conscious of English being the corporate language in Vestas, but not necessarily in the sense that they are aware of an actual corporate decision to use English as the common language. They rather refer to English as a global language, as the common denominator available to overcome the language barrier. Therefore, they do not seem to gain any corporate sense of belonging from the use of English, rather they seem to use English because ‘it is just the easiest foreign language for everybody’.

The spread of English in Sustainability as a global language and a common denominator seems to be illustrated by the use of English in the communication between the Danish employees and their Swedish colleague. The Danish respondents tell that they often communicate in English with their Swedish colleague in Sustainability, because the use of English makes communication easier. One respondent (linguistic coordinator, Danish) tells that although the Danish and Swedish languages are very closely related much communication with their Swedish colleague takes place in English ‘to be sure that we all talk about the same thing’. Another respondent (vice president, Danish) tells how the use of English eases the communication with his Swedish colleague, and how they use English to clarify things which may be unclear when using a mixture of Danish and Swedish: ‘sometimes we experience that one of us – that something is not quite clear, then we switch to English [..] clearly, when in doubt we switch to English’.

English also seems to be perceived as a global language in the way the Sustainability people seem to naturally manage the use of English themselves. Usually, the respondents do not use language workers or other colleagues who happen to be more adequate in English than themselves for their English communication. Only special documentation which is supposed to be distributed to many people seems to be proofread by language workers. One respondent (linguistic coordinator, Danish) tells that ‘people usually manage by themselves, we only do some proofreading’.

The respondents also refer to English as a ‘communication tool’ and ‘a tool that you need to know how to use in order to get on in the organisation’. One non-Danish respondent even refers to a sense of exclusion in some parts of the organisation due to the spread of English, not in Denmark or Scandinavia, but in other parts of Europe and the world where English is not an ‘integrated part of people’s lives’:

English is used as a language by everybody as far as possible to be able to communicate with each other, but nobody would get any [sense of belonging] out of using the English language. I think rather the other way around, the intention is probably that we can integrate everybody by talking one language, but what happens is that out in the field, not in Denmark or Scandinavia, where I think English is an integrated part in your daily life, but for example in Germany, in France, and the Mediterranean countries, also Asia and China, there I think it is rather perceived as being something that people should be able to talk, but since they are not, they do not

44


belong to it, to the group, I think they rather feel excluded - here it is no problem -in Denmark (ex-graduate, Swiss).

The above analysis on a global language suggests that the spread of English in the organisation originates from a perception of English as a global language and from a pragmatic need for a common denominator to overcome the language barrier. The spread of English does not seem to originate from an awareness of a conscious corporate decision to use English as the common corporate language. The perception of English as a global language may be illustrated by the comment of one of the respondents (vice president, Danish) in connection with offering his views on knowledge-sharing. As highlighted under the analysis on inclusion of non-Danish colleagues he tells that he would focus on the competence of his colleagues and not their nationality when searching for specific knowledge, and if that person happens to be a foreign colleague he would ‘expect that his foreign colleague speaks English’.

4.6 Summary

To recapitulate briefly on the analysis of the data the findings suggest, firstly, a high penetration and the need for sophisticated English skills in Sustainability, but a lack of a common awareness of English as the corporate language of Vestas and of a definition of the concept.

Secondly, English language consistency seems to be quite high among the Danish employees in Sustainability, however, although the Danish respondents seem very inclusive towards their foreign colleagues, code-switching to English occurs. In Vestas in general it seems that English may have a superior status, but local languages, including Danish, has a high status as well.

Thirdly, although different levels of proficiency in English do not seem to cause any significant problems in Sustainability’s daily in-house business meetings, the use of English seems to cause some ineffective communication among the non-native English speakers in telephone meetings and physical meetings with colleagues from abroad. Furthermore, the respondents seem to find that the native English speakers have a linguistic advantage, which may lead to a certain extent of power distortion. However, the native English speakers may also lose valuable knowledge as a consequence of power distortion. The non-native English speakers seem to find that the native English speakers have a rhetorical advantage, since the non-native English speakers may lose rhetorical skills when having to present or discuss things in English.

Fourthly, the communicative challenges in connection with the use of English seem to result in thin communication, at least in the form of a reduction in the quality of employee exchanges.

Finally, English seems to spread throughout the organisation rather as a result of a perception of English as a global language than as a result of a common awareness of English as the corporate language of Vestas.

45


5. Discussion

The previous chapter analysed the Vestas data with reference to English usage and with reference to the four themes emerging from the interviews: 1) English language consistency, 2) proficiency in English, 3) thin communication, and 4) a global language. The data offered an insight into the use of English as a corporate language in Sustainability but also to some extent in Vestas in general. Therefore, the following discussion will reflect findings primarily in Sustainability but also to some extent Vestas in general. The point of departure for my investigation was two research questions as stated in the introduction: 1) can the use of English as a corporate language overcome the language barrier of a multinational and multilingual corporation, and 2) can the use of English as a corporate language have a positive effect on the cohesion within the company?

The literature review revealed three perspectives on the use of English as a corporate language: 1) the management perspective, 2) the sociolinguistic perspective, and 3) the linguistic perspective. All three perspectives will be reflected in the discussion, but in an attempt to answer the above research questions the analysis will be divided into two parts on research question 1) and research question 2) respectively.

Can the use of English as a corporate language overcome the language barrier of a multinational and multilingual corporation?

Sustainability seems to have a high penetration of English and a need for sophisticated English skills as revealed in the analysis on English usage. Furthermore, Sustainability is a relatively young department with reference to seniority and it employs non-Danish speaking foreigners as revealed in the chapter on data and methodology. In general the analysis suggests that Sustainability manages the use of English well. Not necessarily because they use a specific type of company English (Millar and Jensen, forthcoming). The low average seniority and the analysis indicate that the respondents do not rely on a specific type of company English developed over a period of time. Rather they seem to rely on an influence of English from above through their professional education (Preisler, 2003) or on their global experience. They seem to have a strong global orientation (Tange, 2008), not necessarily towards a corporate language initiative, but towards the importance of using English to ease communication with their foreign colleagues. However, although Sustainability seems to manage the use of English well, the analysis reveals that the use of English offers some linguistic challenges.

From a management perspective Feely and Harzing (2002, 2003, and 2008) define the language barrier and its possible consequences in a multilingual company, and identify the adoption of a corporate language as one option for managing language problems. Since English has the status of a global language (Crystal, 2003), since there is ‘a corporate representation of English as the global bridge’ (Millar and Jensen, forthcoming) and since English has a large influence on corporate business in Denmark due to the internationalisation (Preisler, 2003), English is the obvious corporate language choice for a Danish multinational corporation. However, the analysis suggests that the use of English involves at least some of the same linguistic challenges as the corporate language is supposed to solve.

46


Feely and Harzing (2008) identify miscommunication and less effective communication as consequences of language diversity, and argue that these consequences may lead to uncertainty, anxiety and even conflict. The analysis on proficiency reveals that different levels of English proficiency among the non-native English speakers, at least in some situations, resulted in miscommunication and less effective communication with a risk of uncertainty, anxiety and conflict.

Feely and Harzing (2008) also identify loss of rhetorical skills and power distortion as possible consequences of language diversity. Two language barriers which you might argue would be overcome by using a global language such as English. However, again the analysis on proficiency reveals that loss of rhetorical skills and power distortion in relation to native English speakers may be consequences of using the non-native corporate language English.

Code-switching is another possible consequence of language diversity identified by Feely and Harzing (2008). Again you might argue that this barrier would be overcome by using a global language such as English. However, the analysis on English language consistency reveals that even in Sustainability, which seems to manage very well in English due to its global orientation and experience, code-switching occurs, although, it seems, mainly in connection with social interaction.

From a sociolinguistic perspective thin communication (Tange and Lauring, 2009) in the form of a reduction in the quality of employee exchanges seems to be a consequence of using the non-native corporate language English in Sustainability. Again, in spite of their global experience and orientation a certain withdrawal from social interaction seems to make communication more formal with the risk of a lack of knowledge-sharing.

However, the analysis, I find, does not substantiate language clustering (Tange and Lauring, 2009) in Sustainability. Thin communication may mean that knowledge is not shared to the same extent as it would have been among native Danish speakers using their mother tongue. But actual containment of knowledge as revealed by Tange and Lauring (2009), Mäkelä et al (2004), Welch et al (1999a) and as suggested by Millar and Jensen (forthcoming) does not seem to be a consequence of English usage in Sustainability. There does not seem to be a ‘containment of communication and information to particular linguistic communities’ (Tange and Lauring, 2009: 226), in this case a Danish cluster and a cluster of foreign employees. When the Danish employees encounter a work-related problem they seem to consult the colleague they find most competent on the problem irrespective of linguistic community. Also it seems that although most of the participants in the daily in-house business meetings are Danish information is ‘properly disseminated and discussed’ (Millar and Jensen, forthcoming).

As far as Vestas in general is concerned the data suggest that the global orientation of Sustainability may not prevail in all parts of the organisation. The phenomena of code-switching and thin communication may be more pronounced in other departments, but further studies into the organisation would have to substantiate that. However, the data on Vestas in general suggest that local languages have a high status, including Danish. There is a need to meet employees deep in the organisation at ‘eye-level’ in their local language to disseminate information properly.

47


You may argue that in the sense that English is a global language (Crystal, 2003), and as such a common denominator, the use of English as a corporate language can overcome the language barrier of a multinational and multilingual corporation. The above discussion suggests that the use of English can overcome the language barrier in Sustainability, but not necessarily in Vestas as a whole. However, even in Sustainability the use of English poses at least some of the linguistic challenges to communication that it is supposed to solve, which may result in a lack of knowledge-sharing.

Can the use of English as a corporate language have a positive effect on the cohesion within the company?

Feely and Harzing (2003) highlight benefits in connection with the use of a corporate language. One is that the use of a corporate language ‘gives a sense of belonging as an element in diffusing a corporate culture’ (2003: 45). The analysis suggests that the Sustainability employees do not link the use of English to any sense of belonging to Vestas. It seems that English spreads among the employees rather as a global language and a common denominator than as a common corporate language. They do not seem to use English because of a global orientation towards a corporate language initiative, but rather because of a global orientation as such. In that sense the use of English as a corporate language does not have any positive effect on the cohesion within the department.

The data on Vestas in general suggest that in the organisation as a whole English also spreads rather as a global language and a common denominator than as a common corporate language. Also the analysis suggests that local languages, including Danish, have a high status. It seems that English as a corporate language may not be as widely spread as the term suggests (Frederiksson et al, 2006) and that the company still operates ‘as a multilingual community’ (2006: 419). Furthermore, the analysis on proficiency suggests that lack of English fluency may pose a challenge on the cohesion (Barner-Rasmussen and Björkman, 2007). At least some of the respondents’ views on meetings with colleagues abroad seemed to reflect that English was not always ‘easily and accurately’ spoken (2007: 106).

Since the parent company language is Danish, the Danish language may ‘play an important role in inter-unit communication’ (Welch et al, 1999a: 429-430) due to the expatriation of Danish employees from headquarters, and language clusters (ibid.) may exist within the organisation. The analysis reveals some information which points in that direction, but you would need further investigation into the organisation to substantiate those findings. However, it seems that there is no link between the use of English as a corporate language and any sense of belonging to the company in Vestas in general either. In that sense the use of English as a corporate language does not have any positive effect on the cohesion within the company as a whole.

But this does not necessarily mean that the use of English does not have a positive effect on corporate cohesion at all. Lauring and Selmer (2009) suggest that the consistent use of English as a common language in management communication has a positive effect on group cohesion. While my analysis does not offer any specific information about management’s consistency in using English, it does offer an insight into English language consistency in Sustainability and to some extent also in Vestas in general.

48


The analysis on English language consistency suggests that Sustainability has a high level of English language consistency, which seems to have a positive effect on the inclusion of foreign colleagues. However, the analysis does not suggest whether English language consistency has a positive effect on the cohesion or it is the other way around: the cohesion within the department has a positive effect on English language consistency.

From a sociolinguistic perspective the above discussion on whether English can overcome the language barrier suggested that the communicative practice of thin communication (Tange and Lauring, 2009) is found in Sustainability, but that language clustering (ibid.) does not seem to prevail in the department. However, code-switching seems to occur in Sustainability and you might argue that there is an element of clustering in the phenomenon of code-switching, and that poses a challenge to the inclusion of foreign colleagues and thus the cohesion. Tange and Lauring (ibid.) argue that language clustering arises from ‘a tendency among individuals to seek the company of people from a similar cultural and linguistic background’ (2009: 229). On the other hand there might also be an element of thin communication in code-switching. Tange and Lauring argue that thin communication is ‘linked to employees’ self-perception, possibly concealing a sense of linguistic inadequacy’ (ibid.). It is difficult to separate the reasons for code-switching. This would require an in-depth analysis of specific code-switching situations, which is beyond the scope of my investigation. However, the analysis on code-switching in Sustainability suggests that the phenomenon cannot be ascribed only to ‘linguistic inadequacy’ but also to ‘a tendency among individuals to seek the company of people from a similar cultural and linguistic background’.

Hence I find that the phenomenon of code-switching in Sustainability, at least to some extent, may be ascribed to the principle of homophily: the tendency of people to choose to interact with similar others (McPherson et al, 2001). It seems that the Sustainability employees, at least to some extent ‘associate with similar others for ease of communication, shared cultural tastes and other features that smooth the coordination of activity and communication’ (2001: 435).

Consequently, code-switching may pose a challenge on the cohesion within the department. There seems to be a ‘common-sense theory’ (Millar and Jensen, forthcoming) among the non-Danish respondents that the Danes have ‘good or reasonable skills in English’ (ibid.). This may cause non-Danish employees to experience code-switching as exclusion, which it may well be, conscious or non-conscious, if code-switching can be ascribed not only to linguistic inadequacy but also to homophily. You might even argue that in Sustainability code-switching is a challenge to the cohesion within the department rather than it is a mere consequence of the language barrier and as such a challenge to the knowledge-sharing. The reason why homophily in the form of code-switching does not seem to result in actual language clustering and the containment of knowledge in Sustainability may be that code-switching seems to occur mainly in connection with social interaction, and that the Danish Sustainability employees have a strong global orientation. However, in spite of the code-switching phenomenon Sustainability seems to have a high level of English language consistency, which again seems to have a positive effect on the cohesion and on at least some foreign colleagues’ ‘tolerance’ towards code-switching.

49


Thin communication in the form of reduced quality in employee exchanges might pose a challenge to the cohesion within Sustainability as well; however, it seems that thin communication does not necessarily have a negative effect on the cohesion within the department either. It seems that English language consistency and openness towards including foreign colleagues is more important than the quality of the exchanges with your foreign colleagues. Hence English language consistency seems to have a positive effect on the cohesion within the department.

As far as Vestas in general is concerned the analysis on English language consistency reveals that foreign employees may feel somewhat more excluded in other departments due to low English language consistency, however, the data do not suggest whether lack of English language consistency in other departments can be ascribed to inadequacy, homophily or simply that people are not as inclusive towards their foreign colleagues as the Sustainability people seem to be due to a more local orientation.

-----------------------

Welch et al (2001, 2005) argue that language is a difficult factor to separate in international management studies and that ‘language skills are competencies possessed by individuals, not by organisations’ (2001: 194). They further argue that the individual is the key factor and that language is ‘person-bound, permeating all facets of multinational activities and behaviour’ (2005: 24).

My investigation has focused on the level of the individual language user. I have attempted to separate language by asking whether English can overcome the language barrier of a multinational and multilingual corporation. However, at the same time I have attempted to offer a holistic view of how English works as a corporate language by asking whether English can have a positive effect on the cohesion within the company. I find that my analysis has offered some information on the strengths and weaknesses of using English as a corporate language, although the findings are based on the experiences and beliefs of a small sample of language users.

50


6. Conclusion

The purpose of my thesis was to explore the strengths and weaknesses of using English as a corporate language. Big international companies increasingly use English as a corporate language in an attempt to ease communication and overcome the language barrier in a multinational and multilingual environment. While there is a general perception of English as a global lingua franca, research findings suggest that English may not be a neutral instrument of communication. Different levels of English proficiency and reduced quality of employee exchanges may lead to less efficient communication and may affect social interaction and knowledge-sharing in the company. However, research findings also suggest that the use of a corporate language such as English may have a positive effect on the cohesion within the company, if the corporate language is used consistently in management communication.

Motivated by the challenges English usage seems to pose to corporate communication and cohesion I have attempted to answer two research questions: 1) can the use of English as a corporate language overcome the language barrier of a multinational and multilingual corporation?, and 2) can the use of English as a corporate language have a positive effect on the cohesion within the company?

I have chosen an exploratory and qualitative approach to my research. My theoretical framework is based on theories and findings approaching English as a corporate language from a management, a sociolinguistic and a linguistic perspective, which offers a holistic view of the issue. My empirical data consist of qualitative interviews with a small sample of individual language users within one department of the Danish multinational corporation Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Hence my research results do not suggest a general answer to the above research questions, but reflect only the experiences and beliefs among this specific group of language users. However, my research results throw some light on the strengths and weaknesses of using English as a corporate language.

My findings suggest that English can overcome the language barrier in a multinational and multilingual corporation, since it is the principal global language and as such a common denominator for employees with different mother tongues. However, English seems to involve at least some of the same challenges to corporate communication as language diversity does. Different levels of proficiency among non-native English speakers result in miscommunication and less effective communication. Code-switching from English to Danish among Danish employees and thin communication in the form of reduced quality of employee exchanges lead to more formal interaction, which again may cause a lack of knowledge-sharing within the company. Non-native English speakers’ loss of rhetorical skills and power distortion in relation to native English speakers caused by the native English speakers’ advantage of speaking their mother tongue may cause a lack of knowledge-sharing as well.

However, the findings suggest that code-switching to Danish, at least among this specific sample of language users, cannot be ascribed only to inadequacy in English but also to a great extent to homophily, the tendency to interact with similar others. This may be the reason why code-switching to Danish does not seem to lead to actual language clustering in the form of containment of knowledge in a Danish cluster and a cluster of foreign employees. Although the Danish employees have a tendency to homophily they have, at the same time, a high level of English language consistency, which has a

51


positive effect on the cohesion within the department and thus on the foreign employees’ tolerance towards code-switching. Hence, as far as cohesion is concerned, it seems that a high level of English language consistency is more important than the quality of employee exchanges.

The strength of using English as a corporate language is that English is a global language and as such a common denominator for employees with different mother tongues, which makes it possible to overcome the language barrier in a multinational and multilingual environment. If English is used consistently throughout the organisation whenever language diversity poses a challenge to the communication and the mutual understanding among colleagues, it seems that English can have a positive effect on the cohesion within the company.

However, the weakness of using English as a corporate language is that English does not seem to be a ‘neutral’ and shared communication code. If English is perceived as a business lingua franca in the sense that the language users are communicators in their own right, due to its status as a global language, management and the language users in general may not be aware of the challenges and limitations the use of English may pose to corporate communication.

My findings suggest that employees do not have a clear perception of the corporate language concept or what it implies. The findings also suggest that the high level of English language consistency among the language users interviewed for this investigation and their global orientation does not necessarily prevail in other parts of the organisation. Therefore, more in-house communication about the concept of corporate language and what it implies and about the challenges and difficulties that both native and non-native English speakers may face due to the use of English might lead to more awareness in the organisation of the linguistic and sociolinguistic challenges connected with the corporate language English. This awareness might again lead to more openness among the employees of the strengths and weaknesses of using English as a corporate language, and again to a higher level of English language consistency in general, which might consequently have a positive effect on the cohesion within the company.

I have opted for an investigation of the use of English as a corporate lingua franca in attempt to find out whether the use of English as a corporate language can overcome the language barrier of a multinational and multilingual corporation and whether it has a positive effect on the cohesion within the company. In answering my research questions I have revealed strengths and weaknesses of using English as a corporate language.

52


References

ASB (12 June 2009). Engelsk kan give bedre sammenhold på arbejdspladsen. Aarhus School of Business. Available from www.asb.dk/news [Accessed 24 June 2009].

Barner-Rasmussen, W. and Björkman, I. (2007). Language fluency, socialization and inter-unit relationships in Chinese and Finnish subsidiaries. Management and Organization Review, 3 (1), 105-129.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Second edition. Cambridge, UK: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

The Danish Ministry of Culture (2008). Sprog til Tiden – rapport fra Sprogudvalget. Available from http://www.kum.dk/sw69649.asp [Accessed 26 December 2009].

The Danish Ministry of Culture (2009). Sprog til Tiden – Regeringens opfølgning på sprogudvalgets rapport. Available from http://www.kum.dk/sw83894.asp [Accessed 26 December 2009].

Dansk Sprognævn (23 January 2007). Notat om dansk sprogpolitik. Available from http://www.ft.dk/samling/20061/Beslutningsforslag/B56/Bilag/1/343158.PDF [Accessed 26 December 2009].

Davidsen-Nielsen, N. (2003). Sproglig mangfoldighed i en globaliseret verden. In: B. Kristensen, ed. Hvidbog om erhvervsliv, sprogpolitik og konkurrenceevne. Frederiksberg: Dansk Selskab for Fagsprog og Fagkommunikation (DSFF), pp. 15-17.

Feely, Alan J. and Harzing, A.-W. (2002). Forgotten and neglected – Language: the orphan of international business research. In: the 62nd Annual meeting of the Academy of Management, 9-14 August 2002, Denver, USA. Available from ASB Library, long distance loan [received August 2009].

Feely, Alan J. and Harzing, A.-W. (2003). Language Management in multinational companies. Cross Cultural Management, 10 (2), 37-52.

Feely, Alan J. and Harzing, A.-W. (2008). The language barrier and its implications for HQ-subsidiary relationships. Cross Cultural Management, 15 (1), 49-61.

Fredriksson, R., Barner-Rasmussen, W., and Piekkari, R. (2006). The multinational corporation as a multilingual organization: The notion of a common corporate language. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 11 (4), 406-423.

Gillham, B. (2000). The Research Interview. London / New York: Continuum.

Harder, P. (2001). Den dobbelt udfordring – en sproglig strategi for det 21. århundrede. Uddannelse, 1. Available from http://udd.uvm.dk/200101/udd01-4.htm?menuid=4515 [Accessed 26 December 2009].

53

http://udd.uvm.dk/200101/udd01-4.htm?menuid=4515

http://www.ft.dk/samling/20061/Beslutningsforslag/B56/Bilag/1/343158.PDF

http://www.kum.dk/sw83894.asp

http://www.kum.dk/sw69649.asp

http://www.asb.dk/news


Holmes, J. (2008). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Third edition. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Jarvad, P. (2001). Det danske sprogs status i 1990’erne med særligt henblik på domænetab. Copenhagen: Faculty of Humanities, University of Copenhagen. Available from http://dsn.dk/sprogviden/sprogpolitik/udgivelser-om-sprogpolitik [Accessed 26 December 2009].

Jensen, Lundager B. (2003). Virksomhedernes behov for sprog og kompetencer. In: B. Kristensen, ed. Hvidbog om erhvervsliv, sprogpolitik og konkurrenceevne. Frederiksberg: Dansk Selskab for Fagsprog og Fagkommunikation (DSFF), pp. 17-19.

Lauring, J. and Selmer, J. (2009). Common language and group cohesiveness in multicultural organizations. In: Annual Meeting Academy of Management, 6-12 August 2009, Chicago, USA. Available from J. Lauring [received 22 September 2009].

Lauring, J. and Timmermann, S. Korsgaard (2006). Mangfoldighedsledelse og internationalisering. In: S. Hildebrandt, ed. Strategi og Ledelse. Copenhagen: Børsens Forlag (Børsen Ledelseshåndbøger) , chapter 9.2.

Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M. and Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 401-421.

Mäkelä, K., Kalla, H. and Piekkari, R. (2004). Knowledge sharing within multinationals: The phenomenon of clustering. In: 30th annual conference of the European international business academy, 5-8 December 2004, Ljubljana. Available from ASB Library, long distance loan [received August 2009].

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin L. and Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.

Millar, S. and Jensen, A. (forthcoming). Language choice and management in Danish multinational companies: The role of common sense. Forthcoming in Sociolinguistica, 23, 2009, according to information from S. Millar received 5 November 2009. Available from authors 6 July 2009 without page numbers. [Sociolinguistica vol. 23 still not available by closing of thesis].

Ostrynski, N. (22 October 2007). Engelsk har fortrængt dansk i hver fjerde virksomhed. Berlingske Tidende. Available from http://www.infomedia.dk [Accessed 12 September 2009].

Phillipson, R. (2008). Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? English in European integration and globalization. World Englishes, 27 (2), 250-267.

Preisler, B. (1999). Danskerne og det engelske sprog. Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag / Samfundslitteratur.

Preisler, B. (2003). English in Danish and the Danes’ English. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 159, 109-126.

54

http://www.infomedia.dk/

http://dsn.dk/sprogviden/sprogpolitik/udgivelser-om-sprogpolitik


Sørensen, Slot E. (2005). Our corporate language is English: an exploratory survey of 70 DK-sited corporations’ use of English. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Business, Department for Language and Business Communication (master’s thesis).

Tange, H. (2008). Global commitment or local grievances? An assessment of the Grundfos language policy. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 41, 155-173.

Tange, H. (2009). Language workers and the practice of language management. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14 (2), 131-143.

Tange, H. and Lauring, J. (2006). What kind of English is that? Dilute and contained communication in the global workplace. In: NIC2006 – Questions of Power in Intercultural Communication, no. 13, 23-25 November 2006, Roskilde, Denmark. Nordic Network for Intercultural Communication.

Tange, H. and Lauring, J. (2009). Language management and social interaction within the multilingual workplace. Journal of Communication Management, 13 (3), 218-232.

Thomas, Chris A. (2008). Bridging the gap between theory and practice: language policy in multilingual organisations. Language Awareness, 17 (4), 307-325.

Welch, C. and Piekkari, R. (2006). Crossing language boundaries: Qualitative interviewing in international business. Management International Review, 46 (4), 417-437.

Welch, D., Welch, L. and Marschan-Piekkari, R. (1997). Language: The forgotten factor in multinational management. European Management Journal, 15 (5), 591-598.

Welch, D., Welch, L. and Marschan-Piekkari, R. (1999a). In the shadow: the impact of language on structure, power and communication in the multinational. International Business Review, 8, 421-440.

Welch, D., Welch, L. and Marschan-Piekkari, R. (1999b). Adopting a common corporate language: IHRM implications. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10 (3), 377-390.

Welch, D., Welch, L. and Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2001). The persistent impact of language on global operations. Prometheus, 19 (3), 193-209.

Welch, D., Welch, L. and Marschan-Piekkari, R. (2005). Speaking in Tongues: The importance of language in international management processes. International Studies of Management and Organization, 35 (1), 10-27.

55


Vestas references and respondents

www.vestas.com

Vestas Annual Report (2008). Available from www.vestas.com [Accessed 16 October 2009].

Andersen, Dorte Mundt // HSE Director.

Jensen, Kenneth Hald // CSR Advisor.

Larsen, Jakob // Vice President.

Rierola, Anna Buxaderas // Regional HSE Director.

Schelling, Gian // Business Analyst.

Schlinkert, Anne Mareike // Graduate.

Schou, Tina Winther // Safety Specialist.

Øst, Mariann // Linguistic Coordinator.

Åstrøm, Torsten // Language Manager.

56



Documents

Master’s thesis – Gitte Isagerpure.au.dk/portal/files/8927/Master_s_thesis.docx · Web viewMaster’s thesis. International ... Sociolinguistics is the study of the relationship