Ask HN: How to deal with multiple working languages in the workplace?
I am a non-leader position a IT security consultancy company in a country in Europe. Our department is around 35 people, where about half is now hired from around Europe and the US, and have moved here. I am from this country, and English education is decent here, so we have all defaulted to (broken) English as the working language. However, we currently have the following challenges:
- What should be our working language? English, or should everybody have to learn the native language? Those that would, will not be able to have a technical discussion with a customer or write a report in the language for probably 1-2 years anyway.
- The native english speakers in the department have a major advance language wise, and "eat us up" in technical discussions, because most of us non-native english speakers can't convey the same arguments as fluently as them.
- Non-native english and non-native struggle with not being fluent in either of the working languages.
- Serious department discussions and meetings in (broken) English often lead to confusion and misunderstandings. We've seen an significant increase in personnel conflicts primarily because of poor use of language, or misunderstandings of it. And several remain unresolved because we in reality are working with 5-10 different languages and cultures.
24 comments
I'm bilingual and have learnt several European languages over the years. In both my academic and engineering roles I have worked with many non-native English speakers. When I have to speak in one of the European languages I realize how hard it is to express technical materials when you are not fluent in the other language. Makes me empathetic for my non-native English co-workers.
Since you are asking the question on HN, I assume you are working in an IT area. For that reason I suggest that EN-US should be basis for your "international" English. Simple reason being that the vast majority of resources are written EN-US, so why fight it. (I say that as an Aussie and a pedantic preference for EN-AU).
In order to overcome the differences in verbal communications, I suggest taking guidance from Amazon and focus on being documentation-centric. Ensure that a fluent English writer edits the documents. That way, non-native speakers can take their time to unravel materials and also improve their English.
I also find that it builds bridges to learn, to at least tourist level, the languages of your co-workers. Take time to learn about their customs, etc. It is also a good idea for persons who habitually speak fast to slow down. Give people more processing time to grok what is being said.
Since you are asking the question on HN, I assume you are working in an IT area. For that reason I suggest that EN-US should be basis for your "international" English. Simple reason being that the vast majority of resources are written EN-US, so why fight it. (I say that as an Aussie and a pedantic preference for EN-AU).
In order to overcome the differences in verbal communications, I suggest taking guidance from Amazon and focus on being documentation-centric. Ensure that a fluent English writer edits the documents. That way, non-native speakers can take their time to unravel materials and also improve their English.
I also find that it builds bridges to learn, to at least tourist level, the languages of your co-workers. Take time to learn about their customs, etc. It is also a good idea for persons who habitually speak fast to slow down. Give people more processing time to grok what is being said.
As a Briton my vocabulary has slowly changed from en-GB to en-US from working with internationals for most of my career.
No more "every fortnight in future". Instead, it's "biweekly going forward".
I do miss the 'old' terms.
I do miss the 'old' terms.
I found my frequent use of double negatives to be problematic and had to train myself to say "I'm good" instead of "Not bad".
I work with many people from many cultures and countries.
We speak international English together and it works well. Everyone does mistakes, everyone has a strong accent.
People from Texas or Scotland may be native speakers but they are not necessarily easier to understand than people from Italy or Vietnam.
Some communicate better than others, but they are not necessarily the native speakers.
I think you should accept that international English is not perfect British English and it’s okay for it to be a bit broken. Of course you need to clarify when confusion is possible. Eventually everyone will improve.
We speak international English together and it works well. Everyone does mistakes, everyone has a strong accent.
People from Texas or Scotland may be native speakers but they are not necessarily easier to understand than people from Italy or Vietnam.
Some communicate better than others, but they are not necessarily the native speakers.
I think you should accept that international English is not perfect British English and it’s okay for it to be a bit broken. Of course you need to clarify when confusion is possible. Eventually everyone will improve.
Yep, this matches my experience. I'd add a few things:
1) Use the people who listen well to help bridge communication gaps between others. I often found myself acting as a translator between two people who both spoke English, but neither could understand each other.
2) Don't be afraid to stop and say when you don't understand what someone is saying. Don't be offended when someone stops you.
3) Have a sense of humor about it all. We're all people and can laugh a bit at the troubles and get through it together.
1) Use the people who listen well to help bridge communication gaps between others. I often found myself acting as a translator between two people who both spoke English, but neither could understand each other.
2) Don't be afraid to stop and say when you don't understand what someone is saying. Don't be offended when someone stops you.
3) Have a sense of humor about it all. We're all people and can laugh a bit at the troubles and get through it together.
This (working with multiple folks from multiple linguistic backgrounds) has been the story of my career.
It's unavoidable, and a cost of doing business internationally.
IMO the personal conflicts you describe that arise in your situation aren't from the language challenges, it's from the company culture. Figure out how to extend those olive branches, be kind amd understanding to eachother, take the time to really connect and respect eachother and those problems will go away. In short, it's not a language problem but a culture/attitude problem. I've worked in teams like this that work well with minimal conflict, and ones that have lots of conflict. Both had the same language challenges, that's not the variable that's different between the two, its company culture and attitude.
It's unavoidable, and a cost of doing business internationally.
IMO the personal conflicts you describe that arise in your situation aren't from the language challenges, it's from the company culture. Figure out how to extend those olive branches, be kind amd understanding to eachother, take the time to really connect and respect eachother and those problems will go away. In short, it's not a language problem but a culture/attitude problem. I've worked in teams like this that work well with minimal conflict, and ones that have lots of conflict. Both had the same language challenges, that's not the variable that's different between the two, its company culture and attitude.
My workplace has standardised on en-GB, which unfortunately does put me at an advantage. But it’s realistically the only way it can work: there’s no chance that globally every employee will learn sv-SE.
So what can you do? Encourage your native speakers to simplify their language is a good first step. Stop using so many idioms that don’t directly translate, and pick more common words when more common words will do.
Then make sure that English is a skill assessed in hiring. And as it’s a business requirement for reasonable English, make sure that training is available to those that want / need it.
It doesn’t have to be English of course, the same advice would apply the other way around if you pick a different language. But you’ll probably find long-term hiring easier if you stick to a lingua franca.
So what can you do? Encourage your native speakers to simplify their language is a good first step. Stop using so many idioms that don’t directly translate, and pick more common words when more common words will do.
Then make sure that English is a skill assessed in hiring. And as it’s a business requirement for reasonable English, make sure that training is available to those that want / need it.
It doesn’t have to be English of course, the same advice would apply the other way around if you pick a different language. But you’ll probably find long-term hiring easier if you stick to a lingua franca.
In IT lingua franca would be EN-US. After all, so many terms are actually based on Latin or Greek.
I know this is not the question you are asking, but...
As someone who is not a native English speaker working at a US-headquartered organization, I suggest to use written communication more than spoken. It is easier for the non-natives to keep up with the speed of the discussion.
IMO a company needs to decide this before hiring people.
I experienced English as lingua franca in an US company based in Germany with around 25 nationalities and there was no problem at all. In fact, it was a pleasure (and a great way to get travel recommendations!).
If the language level is acceptable, people will be able to convey their arguments appropriately. A native English speaker may be more fluent, but the argument can stand by itself, if the culture of the company is right. IMO if people cannot understand your argument at all, you do not have enough proficiency to work in that language.
I experienced English as lingua franca in an US company based in Germany with around 25 nationalities and there was no problem at all. In fact, it was a pleasure (and a great way to get travel recommendations!).
If the language level is acceptable, people will be able to convey their arguments appropriately. A native English speaker may be more fluent, but the argument can stand by itself, if the culture of the company is right. IMO if people cannot understand your argument at all, you do not have enough proficiency to work in that language.
You actually might have two different problems.
One is language - do choose English as the lingua franca, and make sure the people you hire speak it well enough. To some extent, you need to hire people you can work with, and it starts with language. If you choose the local language, you just won't be able to hire.
The other one is much harder, and is culture. Basically, what might seem perfectly fine to a Dutch or a French, will sound exceedingly brutal or arrogant to a Brit, and this will lead to a neverending stream of misunderstandings, unless everyone's aware of it.
One is language - do choose English as the lingua franca, and make sure the people you hire speak it well enough. To some extent, you need to hire people you can work with, and it starts with language. If you choose the local language, you just won't be able to hire.
The other one is much harder, and is culture. Basically, what might seem perfectly fine to a Dutch or a French, will sound exceedingly brutal or arrogant to a Brit, and this will lead to a neverending stream of misunderstandings, unless everyone's aware of it.
Your last point is a great point. For all the things my company invested in during their international expansion, cultural training was not one of them, which is a great shame.
I’ve worked in numerous international companies and English has always been the official internal company language. Whilst living in NL several companies were going through the long process of translating all their internal documents, although with one caveat - original Dutch documents took priority when required for legal purposes. Translations were always “best effort”.
> The native english speakers in the department have a major advance language wise, and "eat us up" in technical discussions
The same phenomenon will happen in non-technical positions and lead to overweight of English native speakers in management. Without native-level fluency, you are simply disadvantaged.
The same phenomenon will happen in non-technical positions and lead to overweight of English native speakers in management. Without native-level fluency, you are simply disadvantaged.
As someone who struggled with this in the past, my recommendation is to have less meetings, and communicate more with text (chat / documents).
Meetings in a foreign language drain your energy very quickly, writing gives you the room to think.
Meetings in a foreign language drain your energy very quickly, writing gives you the room to think.
I think in the long run it is better for immigrants to learn the local language. Sure, technical documentation can be in English but verbal communication probably shouldn't be.
Foreign workers should learn the local language, especially if they've moved here, you're not doing them any favour by making them speak English for 8 to 10 hours a day. Work is a big part of integration and social life.
This 50% split is pretty extreme, I don't know how that happened, you'd have to be in a field really lacking local talent or purposefully prioritize foreign workers over local ones. At every company I've worked at (all over Europe) we had 10 to 30% of workers from other countries and everybody naturally defaulted to the local language. It's hard, and often you have to switch to accommodate them, but it's always temporary. I work with an Indian guy, we both started around the same time a few years back, and back then I had to switch to English often, he'd stumble over his words and take a lot of time to express ideas, now I just had a zoom meeting with him: completely fluent in the local language, barely an accent.
1-2 years is not a long time (and you don't need that long to learn with full immersion for 8 hours a day), part of having employees is investing in them. The way I see it, it's not just for your own company's sake, it's your company's civic duty as it will allow them to continue working in this country and make it easier for their next employer. If your company has a training budget I'd set-up one on one language training with private tutors once a week. That's standard at my company (and subsidized by the state).
Your documentation should be in the local language as well. Your hiring practice should prioritize people who speak the language (wherever they come from) at a minimum level and keep those who don't at a reasonable percentage. Unless it's a full-remote international company and workers don't intend to move to your country.
This 50% split is pretty extreme, I don't know how that happened, you'd have to be in a field really lacking local talent or purposefully prioritize foreign workers over local ones. At every company I've worked at (all over Europe) we had 10 to 30% of workers from other countries and everybody naturally defaulted to the local language. It's hard, and often you have to switch to accommodate them, but it's always temporary. I work with an Indian guy, we both started around the same time a few years back, and back then I had to switch to English often, he'd stumble over his words and take a lot of time to express ideas, now I just had a zoom meeting with him: completely fluent in the local language, barely an accent.
1-2 years is not a long time (and you don't need that long to learn with full immersion for 8 hours a day), part of having employees is investing in them. The way I see it, it's not just for your own company's sake, it's your company's civic duty as it will allow them to continue working in this country and make it easier for their next employer. If your company has a training budget I'd set-up one on one language training with private tutors once a week. That's standard at my company (and subsidized by the state).
Your documentation should be in the local language as well. Your hiring practice should prioritize people who speak the language (wherever they come from) at a minimum level and keep those who don't at a reasonable percentage. Unless it's a full-remote international company and workers don't intend to move to your country.