Their reaction was certainly understandable. No major Japanese company had ever changed its official language. However, adopting the English language is vital to the long-term competitiveness of Japanese businesses. Of course, my decision faced plenty of criticism.
We show that changing working language can be extremely disruptive to team work. Under the surface, the language change turns out to strike a new balance of power, in response to which potentially harmful individual strategies emerge to in- or decrease the weight of English in team work, notably through language-switching.
Ambiguity as a policy reaches its limits there, although explicit negotiation may not be an option. Corporate language policy should in any case be thought of as dialectically co-constructed by decision-makers and language-users themselves.
Anglicization1, intended as the increasing use of English as a working language, sometimes though not necessarily sanctioned by Language and globalization englishization at rakuten adoption as a corporate language, poses a major challenge to multinational companies, especially in terms of efficient collaboration Henderson and human resources HR management Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, et Welch a.
A foreign language, even shared, is insufficient in some professional situations, especially those involving informal relationships, for which the local language — the mother tongue of many if not most employees — proves more efficient or satisfactory Lauring et Tange A common corporate language remains, however, a sensible remedy to address the language barrier problem that results from the development of international operations Feely et Harzing And since no language can compete globally with English as a hypercentral language today De Swaan it is almost inevitable that English should be gaining ground in global companies.
The global hegemony of English is bound to meet with resistance. At a macro-level, voices are raised against a new form of imperialism brought about by economic globalization and information technology Truchot ; Dor At a micro-level, it appears that imposing English as the only official working language in a non-Anglo-Saxon company is not always realistic or feasible: It is an often forgotten fact in the literature on management and language that people, not organizations, change language.
People may welcome language change — or they may resist it, just like any other change, if they do not expect advantages from it.
It is also wrong, we think, to take anglicization as a given of the business world and resistance from employees merely as an obstacle to be overcome by the management Neeley b.
That is the approach that we propose to take in this article. Using an ethnographically- inspired methodology, we look at the micro-level dynamics of anglicization in a nationally, culturally and linguistically homogeneous group and address the tantalizing questions: What happens when English worms its way into the everyday life of a work team?
How and to what extent are team work efficiency and inter-member relationships impacted?
How do team members respond? What concrete form s does resistance against anglicization take? The article starts with a review of the literature on anglicization in multinational companies, its organizational and individual-level consequences.
The next part proposes an overview of our methodology, including a presentation of the company where fieldwork was conducted. We go on to present our findings, consisting in a thick description of one case, illustrated with many verbatim quotes.
In the last part, we discuss the relevance and originality of our contribution in view of previous literature. Business development in a globalized world involves crossing boundaries, cultural as well as linguistic.
New contacts with foreign clients, suppliers or — more generically — with international partners create new needs for communication across boundaries. Language diversity is an obvious obstacle for such communication.
The existence of a language barrier between an organization and its commercial and strategic partners is problematic, but it is even more so within the organization, as in the case of relationships between merged companies with different linguistic backgrounds or between headquarters and foreign subsidiaries.
Efficient international operations management requires that information should be circulated easily throughout the organization, from headquarters to subsidiaries and vice versa, to which internal language barriers are an obstacle.
Eventually, internal language barriers contribute to slowing down and increasing the cost of decision making A. Harzing et Feely ; A.
The second option is best exemplified by translation and interpretation, both of which are central to intra-MNC communication Blenkinsopp et Pajouh ; Piekkari et al.
Truchot ; Phillipson ; Tietze or argue that the English used in companies is not actual English but a variety called ELF English as a lingua franca; for this line of argument, see: Very pragmatically, English is used in a company because 1 English language skills are available on the job market and 2 international partners have matching competences in their staff and are therefore willing to use the English language.
This is of course not the case if one of the companies involved in the partnership comes from an English-speaking country. But working in a foreign language comes at a cost. Competence in English may not be as widely spread in the organization as high-level managers with partly or completely English- language education and international experience may think Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, et Welch a.
The implications of foreign language skills as a source of informal power have also been shown to stand in the way of efficient collaboration Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, et Welch b; Vaara et al. Language-related issues have a negative impact on interpersonal relations and trust, which is why they act as an obstacle to socialization processes and team building Henderson ; Henderson The fact that this happens in a company whose official working language, English, is different from the local language, Danish, shows that the imposition of a corporate language is not only a matter of top-down strategic decisions; powerful forces tend to oppose the dynamics and stick to the local language.
What is true in Denmark — Danish people have a reputation for using English 2 A notable exception can be found in Piekkari et al. The implementation involves a myriad of decisions that have to do with language practices which language should be used in what situation?Globalization simply refers to the global or worldwide process of technological, economic, political and cultural exchanges, brought about by modern communication, transportation and legal infrastructure as well as the political choice to consciously open cross-border links in international trade and finance.
View Homework Help - Language and globalization Englishnization at Rakuten from IBUS at University of Sydney. 1. Why did Mikitani think Englishnization is absolutely critical to the. Language & Globalization: “Englishnization” at Rakuten Issues Japanese company tries 'Englishization' Introduction The Rakuten Inc is a Japanese electronic commerce and Internet company based in Tokyo, Japan.
It was founded in by chairman and CEO Hiroshi Mikitani. Englishization and opens a new avenue for postcolonial research on the role of language in IB. Our analysis also advances the field of postcolonial organization. Jump to content. Log in | Register | Register |.
Another important benefit of knowing a different language is being flexible, by being flexible I mean, the new language gives you an open perspective to look at things in .