Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

dominant language emerges within historical,
socio-cultural conditions, and how learning
this language yields benefits.
The second approach looks at language as a
characteristic of those who use it (Vaillancourt,
1991). Studies have tried to explain lower
earnings of certain groups in terms of discrimination
(Raynauld and Marion, 1972;
Lang, 1993) and other factors (Migué, 1970;
Lavoie, 1983), resulting in contradicting
explanations. Language is also seen as acquiring
economic value in terms of the knowledge
that becomes accessible through it
(Dhir and Savage, 2002). Economic studies
have examined the spread (Hocevar, 1983)
and promotion (Grin, 1990a, 1990b) of languages.
Generally, the potential benefit of
using economic tools, such as cost–benefit
analysis, to assess the benefits to be derived
from acquisition of language skills is well
recognized (Jernudd and Jo, 1985; Cooper,
1989). For further review of the literature on
the economics of language see Grin (1996),
Breton (1998), and Dhir and Savage (2002).
Formulating a corporate language
policy
At first glance, the problem of adopting a language
for corporate communication may
seem to be an easy one to solve, especially
for organizations operating out of Englishspeaking
countries. In view of widespread use
of the English language, one might argue that
the English language is the obvious choice,
especially for operations in the global markets
and dealing with workforce diversity. A standardized
language, used both at the home
office and in local markets, facilitates efficient
communication, and minimizes misunderstanding
between the various units of the
organizations (Lester, 1994). What is more, a
common language adds to the glue that keeps
the organization together through soft control
mechanisms, such as corporate culture,
described by Ferner et al.,(1995). However,
the adoption of a standardized language is not
always the optimal strategy, especially when
competitive advantage is to be gained
through access to non-English-speaking markets.
In finance, it is not uncommon for corporations
operating in inter-national markets,
to hold a portfolio of currencies. Lester (1994)
reports that Nestlé designates both French
and English as its official language, but also
uses a wider range of languages for inter-subsidiary
communications. Siemens, a German
multinational corporation, invests heavily in
an in-house language training programme,
globally available to its employees, through
which they may acquire competencies in
German, English, French and Spanish (Lester,
1994). In 1994, Lester noted, ‘the easiest and
cheapest way to approach the language problem
is to hire people already possessing the
required skills’ (Lester, 1994: 43). The problem
of language acquisition was seen to be a
human resource management (HRM) one.
Two years later, Reeves and Wright (1996)
suggested that global organizations would
benefit from a language audit. Soon after that,
Marschan et al. (1997) called for the issue of
language choice and acquisition to be treated
as a strategic matter. As they put it:
An important first step might be to include
language aspects at the highest level of
strategic planning and implementation;
thinking through the language consequences
of strategic decisions upon global
operations; examining their demand on
language facility throughout the global
entity; and identifying possible barriers to
implementation created by the inevitable
differences in language proficiency.
(Marschan et al., 1997: 596)
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors