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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
Contents
Page
1. Introduction
1.1. The position of English in Denmark
1.2. Problem statement
1.3. Delimitation
1.4. Research approach and method
1.5. Key concepts
1.5.1.Corporate language defined
1.5.2.Lingua franca defined
1.6. Thesis structure
4
4
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
2. Literature review
2.1. The management perspective
2.1.1.Language management conceptualised
2.1.2.Language management in practice
2.2. The sociolinguistic perspective
2.2.1.Global or local orientation
2.2.2.The role of common sense
2.2.3.Language clustering and thin communication
2.3. The linguistic perspective
2.3.1.The status of English as a global language
2.3.2.The influence of English in Denmark
2.4. Summary
10
10
10
12
16
16
16
18
19
19
20
21
3. Data and methodology
3.1. Company profile
3.1.1.The Sustainability department
3.2. Research methodology
3.2.1.Data collection
3.2.2.The respondents
3.2.3.The interview guide
3.2.4.Validity
22
22
23
23
23
25
25
26
2
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
Page
4. Analysis of data
4.1. English usage
4.1.1.Awareness of a corporate language and definition of the concept
4.1.2.The penetration of English
4.1.3.The sophistication of English
4.2. English language consistency
4.2.1.Consistency in Sustainability
4.2.2.Consistency in Vestas in general
4.3. Proficiency in English
4.3.1.Non-native English speakers’ proficiency
4.3.2.Native English speakers in a non-native English speakers’ environment
4.3.3.Non-native English speakers’ rhetorical skills
4.4. Thin communication
4.5. A global language
4.6. Summary
27
27
27
29
29
30
30
35
37
37
39
40
41
43
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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 MarschanPiekkari, 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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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 knowledgesharing 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 taskoriented’ (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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
‘language differences and corporate language are equally problematic for the effectiveness of crosscultural 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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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 AngloAmerican subcultures on the influence of English ‘from below’. The project on the influence of AngloAmerican 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 codeswitch 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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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-toface 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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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, knowledgesharing 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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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 nonDanish 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 nonDanish 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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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 nonDanish 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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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 codeswitching 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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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 codeswitching 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 codeswitching 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 codeswitching 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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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 nonnative 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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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 (BarnerRasmussen 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 interunit 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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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’ selfperception, 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 knowledgesharing. 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 codeswitching.
49
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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 nonnative 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 knowledgesharing 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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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
Master’s thesis – Gitte Isager
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