Unlike the language management policies and measures described above, this final category of language management tools refers first and foremost to the everyday informal language assistance carried out by employees among themselves. These tools share a common characteristic in the sense that they are spontaneous, basic and so casual in nature that people may not even notice or pay attention to the fact that they make use of them. Previous studies of language and communication in multilingual organisations, e.g. Andersen and Rasmussen (2004), Feely and Harzing (2003), Harzing et al. (2011) and Lønsmann (2011) have highlighted the importance of the informal ad-hoc language resources that employees draw on in response to emergent language needs at the front-line level. For example, the risk for misunderstandings and misinterpretations can be reduced by simplifying the message or by building in redundancy in communication, i.e. asking a colleague to repeat information that has been given, or switch (code-switch) to the local language if this is different from the corporate language (Gertsen, 2012, pp. 214-215; Harzing et al., 2011, pp. 282-283; Søderberg, 2012, pp. 250-251). Other informal, emergent solutions may be found in the use of linguistic tools, such as (non-company-specific) dictionaries or other types of physical or online tools that may be available, or simply asking a colleague for help (Lønsmann, 2011, p. 101; SanAntonio, 1987).
Charles and Marschan-Piekkari (2002), Harzing et al. (2011) and Shachaf (2008) discuss that the choice of a written communication medium may improve efficiency in communication as compared with an oral communication medium, as different speech varieties, such as accents, may cause comprehension problems, as discussed in section 2.3.4.3. Shachaf (2008, p. 136), for example, found in her study of global virtual teams (GVT) that ‘the use of e-mail reduced miscommunication due to language differences among GVT members’ and that ‘non-native English speakers were able to express themselves better through email than by talking’. Also Harzing et al. (2011) discuss that adjusting the mode of communication by communicating via email rather than phone is a common way of managing
40
language at the front line. Here, communication mode refers to the medium through which communication is conducted (Fjermestad, 2004) – the ‘format’ of communication (Altheide, 1994).
The inclusion of emergent tools in the language management taxonomy may need some clarification with regard to the absence of the ‘language manager’ (cf. Spolsky, 2009, section 2.2.2).
These tools refer to the management of discourse at the front-line level rather than the management of language practices emanating from the corporate level. Emergent solutions are, in other words, not subjected to managerial supervision. Drawing on the language management theory presented in section 2.2.1, this final category of language management tools will be located at the simple language management, i.e. the micro level.
There are a number of reasons why emergent solutions are often among the most frequently used language management tools in practice. Employees may simply need a quick and easy way of dealing with a language or communication issue on the spot, as found in Piekkari et al.’s (2013) study of translation in Nordea, where employees often chose self-translation or consulted their network rather than contacting the company’s translation department (Piekkari et al., 2013). However, front-line employees may also resign to emergent solutions out of necessity. If a company chooses not invest in other types of language management tools, then the de facto language regulation is a ‘laissez-faire approach’ (see Phillipson, 2001a, 2001b, 2003 for a discussion of laissez faire language policies) where employees themselves are left to decide what their language practices should be, for example, what language to use in what situation. These cases could be described as language management through a decentralised language policy where the issue of communication is pushed down the hierarchy, out of sight of the top management (Welch et al., 2001). Consequently, in such situations, employees at the front-line are the ones that may have to deal with everyday issues of language and communication (Andersen & Rasmussen, 2004). As argued by Björkman, Barner-Rasmussen and Vaara (2011, p. 418) international management research ‘has traditionally regarded firms as the appropriate level of analysis without engaging in more micro-level analysis or searching for micro-foundations of organizational level phenomena’. Thus, ‘there is a great need to complement existing knowledge with in-depth analysis at the micro-level’, which is why front-line practices have been included in the language management tool taxonomy presented in Table 1.
41
The use of a lingua franca for internal communicative purposes.
Can be based on a formal language policy mandate or without a formal language policy.
Multiple corporate languages Formalised
Non-formalised
The use of multiple languages for internal communicative purposes. Can be based on a formal language policy mandate or without a formal language policy.
Various ways to control the language of the company either through hard mechanisms such as imposed restrictions on vocabulary or syntax rules, or milder mechanisms such as company dictionaries or preferred writing standards.
Language needs analyses Linguistic auditing Language check-ups
Methodologies to help firms identify the strengths and weaknesses of their organisation in terms of foreign language communication.
Interpretation/translation Internal interpreters/translators External interpreters/translators Crowdsourcing
The use of translation and interpretation services, either through arrangements with external agents or through the establishment of an internal in-house department, or other alternative solutions.
Technological solutions Machine translation
Translation memory systems
The use of computer-based technologies to translate text or voice from one language into another. part-time or for a specific period of part-time, to fill identified language gaps in the company.
Strategic use of employees who perform a bridging function by virtue of their language competencies, either as part of, or in addition to, their normal job description, or in formal or informal language networks. implemented at the front-line level without a corporate level
‘language manager’.
CORPORATE POLICIESFRONT-LINE PRACTICESCORPORATE MEASURES
42 Table 1 Language management tools
2.4.4 Summary
Section 2.4 has described and discussed various language management tools identified in the literature. A central part of this discussion has been the differentiation between corporate policies, corporate measures (‘corporate’ as in management as decision-makers, cf. section 2.3.2) and everyday emergent front-line practices. The main features of these three categories can be summarised as follows: corporate policies are the deliberate control of issues pertaining to language and communication, developed at the managerial level of a firm either in the form of a formalised language policy mandate or without a formal language policy; corporate measures are the planned activities the management may make use of in order to address the language needs of the organisation; and front-line practices refer to the use of informal, emergent language management tools available to staff members. The language management tools discussed in this section are summarised in Table 1.