Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research:Vol5.Issue1.1999:
A n investigation into SMEs’
use of languages in their
export operations
Dave Crick
SMEs’ use of
languages
19
Department of Marketing, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
Keywords Export, Languages, SMEs, United Kingdom
Abstract T his paper reports on an exploratory investigation into the use of languages within UK
small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) which are engaged in export activities. Results from a
postal survey and subsequent interviews provide a contribution to the literature by reporting on
empirical findings in relation to four areas: managers’ perceived importance and benefits of using
foreign languages, issues preventing their use, the functional use of languages within businesses
and issues affecting firms’ recruitment and training in respect of languages. T he results suggest
that, although most firms are aware of the importance of languages and the benefits they can
bring, this is not reflected in their use in certain functional areas and within the recruitment and
training policies of many businesses.
Introduction
A s Herbig and Kramer (1991) point out: “T he world is growing smaller every
day. If you are not attempting to sell your products overseas, you are surely
being exposed to and competing against foreign-made products. The growth of
multinational business, the increasing interdependence of economies, the
tremendous quantity of technology transfer, the world-wide communications
capabilities and the frequent international exchanges have all created the need
to understand better and interact with those from foreign cultures”.
Interestingly, the w ay in w hich particular firms communicate w ith
individuals and organisations within foreign cultures has been shown to vary
quite considerably. Indeed, depending on the situation in w hich the
communication was undertaken, this has resulted in embarrassing situations
for the companies concerned.
One of the most common forms of communication difficulties is normally
considered to be the use of language. However, when dealing with the issue of
language, its perceived meaning needs clarification in order to place it into
context. For example, Swift (1991) points out that popular dictionary definitions
of language are “speech”, “tongue of a people”, “words used in a branch of
learning”, or “style of speech or expression”. Steiner (1977) broadens the
definition by stating that language is “only one among a multitude of graphic,
acoustic, olfactory, tactile, symbolic mechanisms of communication”.
It is, therefore, important not to restrict wider research studies involving
communication issues to spoken language (see, for example, A lmaney, 1974;
A rpan et al., 1974; Henderson, 1979; Ricks, 1983; Mintu-Wimsatt and
Gassenheimer, 1996), albeit this forms the basis of the investigation reported in
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, 1999,
pp. 19-31. © MCB University Press,
1355-2554
IJEBR
5,1
20
this paper. Indeed, Herbig and Kramer (1991) highlight particular problems
associated with non-verbal communication, since on occasions, what words fail
to convey is told through gestures and body movements. T hey point out that
seemingly harmless and even mundane behaviour such as crossing one’s leg
and exposing the soles of one’s shoes or putting hands in one’s pockets is, in
some cultures, considered poor taste, offensive, and insulting towards the host.
A s such, Herbig and Kramer suggest that non-verbal communication can
create “noise” within the cross-cultural communication process, i.e. something
w hich disto rts the intended meaning. T hey prov ide ex amples w hereby
executives may unknowingly create noise when dealing with other cultures:
slouching, chewing gum, using first names, forgetting titles, joking, wearing too
casual clothing, being overtly friendly towards the opposite sex, speaking too
loudly, being too eg alitarian with the wrong people (usually lower class),
working with one’s hands, carrying bundles, and tipping too much.
Examples such as these are affected largely by the context in which crosscultural interactions take place. A lthoug h certain similarities may ex ist
between particular countries in terms of their cultural norms, the likelihood
that problems may occur will arguably increase where an interaction takes
place with a person from a culturally more distant country. By way of example,
Herbig and Kramer (1991) point out how noise may affect US/Japanese
negotiations. T hey suggest that A mericans’ directness and their overbearing
manner may sig nal to Japanese a lack of self-control and implicit
untrustworthiness; at the very least they signal a lack of sincerity. The authors
go further to suggest that silence is another form of communication. W hereas it
is irritating to certain western cultures, silence to the Japanese means one is
projecting a favourable impression and is thinking deeply about the problem.
Turning now to the specific focus of this investigation, it is useful to consider
the use of languages in international business operations, since this is perhaps
the most obvious element of cross-cultural communication and a number of
studies have stressed the importance of this issue (see, for example, Shane,
1988; Ferney, 1989; Holden, 1989; Edwards, 1990; Rushby, 1990; Swift, 1990;
Metcalf, 1991; Schloss, 1991; Swift and Swift, 1992; Evening Standard, 1993;
Miles, 1993; Linguatel, 1995a; 1995b; Marschan et al., 1997).
Research has shown that firms in some countries have faced more difficulties
than others in this respect, some of which have relied too much on the use of
English as a widely recognised “business language” internationally. Indeed, as
Shipman (1992) points out, after Mandarin, English has the largest number of
native speakers in the world – some 700 million people. Commenting on the
results from a regional UK study the government reports that “recent research
shows nearly 33 per cent of small to medium-sized companies in the north of
England had encountered a language or cultural barrier. This figure was almost
twice as high as the one for comparable areas of Spain and Germany” (DT I,
1996a).
Clearly, the inhabitants of certain countries are more amenable to the use of
English as an international business language than others. To illustrate the
point, McIntyre (1991) provides an example cited in the Christian Science
Monitor: “You can buy all the Hondas you want in the United States without
knowing Japanese, but try to sell Buicks in Japan without the language and a
knowledge of the culture. It just doesn’t work”.
After a review of the literature, Hagen (1988) concluded that the overwhelming
message from all the studies was that UK companies were losing valuable trading
opportunities for lack of the right skills in certain languages, and many without
realising it. Consequently, it is within this context that this paper reports on
selected aspects of SMEs’ use of languages in their export operations.
Literature review
A fter a recent empirical study undertaken in Wales, Peel and Eckart (1997)
suggested that “larger firms consider language to be a more important export
impediment than do SMEs”. This observation seems peculiar given the greater
financial and human resources which are usually at the disposal of larger firms.
For example, one might expect that all things being equal, larger firms would be
more willing to employ language specialists, finance language training schemes
for staff, or even contract work out to specialists on an ad hoc basis to translate
work in to and out of foreign languages. Therefore, questions could be raised in
relation to the way in which such attitudes were reflected in firms’ performance,
although a causal relationship is difficult to explain.
The importance of languages to particular businesses and the way in which
this manifests itself in co rpo rate policy has been well documented. Fo r
example, Hagen (1992) points out that some companies are increasing their
investment in language training. Christie’s, the art dealers, now require every
employee to be fluent in at least one foreign language; Grand Metropolitan plc
has decided to include data on language ability in their management review
process, following a personnel audit. BA A plc and Hertz (UK) have introduced
an incentives scheme to encourage their personnel to learn a language.
Clearly, while some companies have made a conscious attempt to improve
their communication skills, others have not, in some cases with disastrous
results. A s the DTI (1996b) point out, when the official receivers were called in
to a company, they found a letter in the filing cabinet which was written in
German. It was untouched because no one had understood the content. T he
order found in the letter was large enough to have saved the company! This is
not to say that poor attitudes towards the use of languages will always have
such dire consequences, but the same government report highlights a number
of embarrassing situations which have arisen. For example, one company
produced their technical specification and sales literature in several languages
only to find they were claiming exceptional efficiency for their “watery sheep”
(i.e. “hydraulic rams”). In another embarrassing incident, the entire British
management of a Dutch subsidiary failed to turn up to the office party because
the details had been posted up in Dutch.
Interestingly, the issue of experimentation with languages has also been
repo rted on. In 1990, Teleconomy, a UK training company, carried out a
SMEs’ use of
languages
21
IJEBR
5,1
22
controlled language test on London companies to see how they would respond
to telephone enquiries from a foreign caller speaking French, German, Spanish,
Italian o r “Broken English”. It w as repo rted that many fo reig n callers
were confused by expressions like “s-ringin-fer-yer” (“its ringing for you”),
“putin-yerfru” (“putting you through”) and “lines-bizi-ye-old?” (“the lines are
busy, will you hold?”). Over one-third of calls failed at the switchboard and
foreign callers reported various rebuffs, including muffled nervous laughter,
long silences and responses enunciated with a high level of decibels (DT I,
1996b).
Policy makers have been keen to highlight success stories associated with
the use of languages. A s the DT I (1996c) point out, during an export drive, a
battery producer from the north-west estimated that there was a 60 per cent
increase in its sales after training 5 per cent of its workforce in French and
German. In another example, one exporter of textile machinery in Gateshead
had built a sales team of fluent Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German
and French speakers with customers in over 75 countries. Since 1990/1991 it
had seen its turnover jump from £ 18.1m to £ 31m in 1992/1993. Policy makers
have suggested (perhaps with an upbeat message which is unrepresentative)
that this approach is typical of the way many small and medium-sized UK
companies are successfully integrating a language capability with their export
strategy (DTI, 1996a).
A lthough the issue of in-house language skills has been widely reported, the
use of translation services has also been reported on within the literature. Ricks
(1984) highlights the problem of the use of translation by focusing on one of
Pepsi’s famous advertisements. He suggests that it should embody the general
theme and concept rather than be an exact or precise duplication of the original
slog an. Pepsi reportedly learned that its ad “come alive with Pepsi” was
literally translated into German to mean “come out of the grave with Pepsi”. In
A sia, it was translated as “bring your ancestors back from the dead”.
Interestingly, an additional though perhaps less publicised problem with
translation is that of sabotage, whereby a false or misleading translation may
take place for some reason, usually associated with commercial gain. Ricks
(1984) provides an example of a US company which may have been the victim
of translation sabotage. The firm tried to sell its products in the former Soviet
Union with the help of a Russian translator. The company innocently displayed
a translated poster in Moscow which, it soon discovered, said the company’s oilwell equipment was good for improving a person’s sex life. This said, however,
the use of “backtranslation” by an independent language specialist has been
commonly suggested in the literature to avoid the problem of literal translation
or indeed translation sabotage (see many international and cross-cultural texts
for more details).
Research focus
T he literature rev iew hig hlig hted that a number of issues are in need of
consideration by managers when determining their approach towards the use
of foreign languages in their businesses, although this should not be removed
from an appreciation of the particular cultural environments in which firms
operate, i.e. in addition to simply a linguistic ability! Nevertheless, this paper is
restricted to factors associated with SMEs’ use of languages rather than issues
associated with culture in a broader sense. Within this, although the factors are
inter-linked, the salient issues concerning languages within firms can arguably
be grouped into two core areas of concern, namely those relating to usage and
training. With this in mind, the specific issues within this study build on these
two core areas and focus on four themes: managers’ perceived importance and
benefits of using foreign languages, issues preventing their use, the functional
use of languages within businesses, and issues affecting firms’ recruitment and
training in respect to languages.
Within the SME sector, it would be rather restrictive from an analytical
viewpoint to present only frequencies of responses, since this would not account
for variations within the study relating to particular categories of firms.
However, although there is no single ag reed method by which to categorise
particular sizes of firms (Storey, 1994; Carson et al., 1995) – indeed, different
statistical results are likely to result from particular subjective classifications –
the categories in this paper were determined after discussions with policy
makers in the joint export promotion directorate (JEPD) in relation to firms’
number of employees.
Methodology
It should be noted that since this paper repo rts on one part of a w ider
investig ation, the methodological approach undertaken is similar to that
reported elsewhere. T he wider study addressed a number of other issues, for
example, whether differences exist between firms with varying deg rees of
ex po rt involvement, but this paper is restricted to differences between
particular sized SMEs in order to provide a more applied focus to the analysis
undertaken.
A fter reviewing the pertinent literature in this area of investigation, a draft
postal questionnaire was constructed incorporating the major issues of interest.
Subsequently, it was shown to several managers with responsibility fo r
exporting and academics deemed knowledgeable about the subject area. In
determining a sampling frame for this investigation, it was decided to restrict
this study to firms with fewer than 250 employees since it was considered that
larger firms with greater human and financial resources would be more likely to
employ language specialists and consequently skew the results of the research.
However, it was considered important that the study be restricted to firms that
were only engaged in export activities and therefore it was decided that nonexporters and those firms with overseas subsidiaries should be excluded from
the study to act as a control mechanism within the methodological approach
undertaken.
It was recognised that there would be a difficulty in identifying exporting
firms with fewer than 250 employees within most commercial sampling frames.
SMEs’ use of
languages
23
IJEBR
5,1
24
Consequently, it was decided to use a database developed from respondents to a
recent study of exporting manufacturers, although the original database from
which this was compiled was the Sells Export Directory. Furthermore, the
questionnaire used in the previous study from which the database was compiled
had a filter question to determine the ethnic origin of the owner of the firms,
since this had been an area under investig ation. In the course of the
investigation reported in this paper, the study was restricted to firms owned by
“white European” executives in an attempt to reduce cultural bias associated
with language use (further precise questions on ethnicity-related issues were
considered inappropriate to avoid racial effects on response rates).
W hen undertaking the postal survey, 400 firms were drawn from the
previously mentioned database; this figure was derived from an assumption
that about a 25 per cent response rate would be achieved prov iding
approximately 100 firms (see most classic research texts for average response
rates to postal surveys). T his was considered manageable since the database
was compiled from previous respondents to a survey and therefore, all things
being equal, the firms had a sympathetic attitude towards responding to
ex po rt-related survey s. In total, 185 firms completed the questionnaire
providing a response rate of 46.25 per cent after two mailings. Interviews were
subsequently undertaken with the executives with responsibility for exporting
(typically the owner/managing director) in 20 firms representing particular
sizes of firms and with various export ratios in order to obtain a more in-depth
perspective of issues surrounding their behaviour in respect to language use.
A lthough a figure of 20 interviews was primarily based on time and cost
limitations, it was considered representative of the overall sample since it was
approaching 10 per cent of the responses to the postal survey. It should also be
noted that after undertaking the 20 interviews, similar issues were discussed.
Consequently, it w as concluded that diminishing returns in so far as
establishing new information would have been the result of increasing the
number of interviews.
Findings
In undertaking the analysis within this investigation, it was observed that the
response rates for the particular categories of firms used by the JEPD were in
fact found to be skewed as follows: group 1 = 1-9 employees (34 responses);
g roup 2 = 10-49 (70); g roup 3 = 50-99 (56); and g roup 4 = 100 to 249 (25).
Nevertheless, whereas it could be argued that the groups might be merged to
even out the skewed response rate (especially since they were based on
subjective classifications any w ay ), it w as decided that this would be
inappropriate since they were based on the JEPD’s categorisations.
Turning now to the analysis in a little more detail, although there are a
number of issues of importance to managers and policy makers concerning the
use of languages in conducting international business activities, the findings in
this paper focus on four themes. First, managers’ perceived importance and
benefits of using foreign languages; second, issues preventing their use; third,
the functional use of languages within businesses; and, fourth, issues affecting
firms’ recruitment and training in respect to languages.
Commencing with the firms’ perceived importance and benefits of foreign
languages, the findings are summarised in Table I. Using analysis of variance
between the mean responses, it can be observed that no statistical difference
was found to exist between the firms, with all four g roups indicating, in
aggregate terms, that languages were important in their businesses. In terms of
how languages benefit/might benefit their businesses, it was interesting to note
that many firms, and particularly very small ones, perceived that this might
enhance their image and to a lesser extent increase orders; an increase in
competitiveness was not viewed as a benefit by the majority of firms. Reasons
for these perceived benefits, in addition to the obvious issues of a willingness to
do business in a customer’s language and because customers prefer to do
business in their own language, involved avoiding misunderstandings and the
fact that it provided an indication of the quality of the business. Even so,
reasons why firms did not use languages are shown in Table II. Perhaps not
surprisingly, the majority of firms indicated that this was because English is
widely spoken; lack of skills within the companies was also seen to be a factor,
and in particular, by very small firms.
1-9
How important do you believe
languages are in your business?
1.97
Firms’ mean responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
2.10
2.03
1.92
F ratio
F prob
0.402
0.751
SMEs’ use of
languages
25
Responses were rated as follows: 1 = very important; 2 = important; 3 = not very important;
4 = irrelevant
1-9
How do you think languages benefit/might benefit
your business?
Enhance image
Increased orders
Increased competitiveness
Languages do not benefit
W hy do you think languages benefit/might benefit
your company?
It shows a willingness to do business in the
customers’ language
Avoids misunderstandings
A n indication of the quality of the business
Because customers prefer to do business in their
own language
Per cent of firms’ responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
76
64
13
0
67
40
20
13
64
38
22
13
48
48
12
12
88
71
50
80
50
31
82
48
57
88
48
52
41
51
63
48
Table I.
Perceptions of the
importance and benefits
of languages in the
business
IJEBR
5,1
26
Turning now to the extent to which foreign languages were used within
businesses, the results are detailed in Table III. Only one statistical difference
was observed between the mean responses concerning the extent to which
business departments/functions use languages and this was in relation to the
receptionist/switchboard; this, perhaps surprisingly, was rated slightly higher
by the smaller firms. This said, the only department/function which had a mean
score above the mid-point on the rating scale for any of the groups of firms was
sales and marketing. Clearly, this suggests that most firms do not make too
much use of languages within most of their departmental areas. However,
within specifically the sales and marketing function, the most widely used areas
were seen to be personal selling and exhibitions, particularly by very small
firms. For the company as a whole, the major areas in which languages were
used tended to be foreign travel and received correspondence.
Finally, in terms of firms’ recruitment and training policy towards language
speakers, the findings are detailed in Table IV. A s far as recruitment was
concerned, no statistical difference was observed between the groups of firms in
relation to whether firms look to recruit new employees with language skills. In
so far as training was concerned, the statements which best reflected firms’
training policies tended to be that the company does not provide/encourage
language training and that they rely on employees’ existing skills. T his was
particularly the case w ith very small firms w hereas their larger-sized
counterparts were more likely to provide and pay for language training.
Discussion
T he purpose of the exploratory investigation reported in this paper was to
obtain a basic understanding of SMEs’ behaviour and perceptions with respect
to the use of languages within their businesses. T he issues within this study
focused on four themes: managers’ perceived importance and benefits of using
foreign languages, issues preventing their use, the functional use of languages
within businesses, and issues affecting firms’ recruitment and training in
respect to languages.
In short, it was observed that, in aggregate terms, the sample of firms rated
the importance of language use rather highly and most recognised the major
1-9
Table II.
Factors preventing
the use of languages
in the business
If you do not use languages in your business what
prevents you from using them?
English is widely spoken
Lack of skills in company
Too time-consuming
Cost involved
Not necessary
44
38
12
6
0
Per cent of firms’ responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
47
27
6
3
11
46
32
5
4
2
28
20
0
0
12
1-9
In which business departments/
functions does your company use
foreign languages and to what
extent?
Sales and marketing
Secretarial/administration
Support services
Receptionist/switchboard
Distribution
A ccounting/legal
Production/technical
Firms’ mean responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
F ratio
F prob
0.457
0.514
2.073
6.317
2.617
0.635
0.463
0.712
0.673
0.105
0.000
0.052
0.593
0.708
SMEs’ use of
languages
27
2.52
1.86
1.74
1.65
1.65
1.52
1.51
2.42
1.94
1.44
1.70
1.57
1.50
1.54
2.48
1.82
1.44
1.23
1.32
1.45
1.42
2.68
1.70
1.37
1.50
1.31
1.31
1.47
Responses were rated as follows: 1 = never; 2 = sometimes; 3 = often; 4 = very often
1-9
Per cent of firms’ responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
If languages are used in the sales and marketing
function, in which areas?
Personal selling
Exhibitions
Public relations
Promotional literature
Special promotions
Direct mail
Packaging
Branding
Market research
A dvertising
85
74
29
21
21
15
12
0
0
0
67
57
14
19
6
17
16
3
17
16
73
45
21
32
7
5
10
0
14
18
60
60
36
64
40
20
24
8
8
32
For the company as a whole, in which of the following
areas are foreign languages used?
Foreign travel
Received correspondence
Outgoing correspondence
Outgoing telephone calls
Meetings
Received orders
Presentations
Received telephone calls
Others (please state)
82
53
41
38
32
32
32
29
0
60
64
40
54
33
70
23
63
3
70
75
60
70
32
59
9
61
4
76
72
60
64
44
48
32
48
0
benefits brought about by their use. However, of those firms which did not use
languages, it was worrying to observe that many responded by stating this
resulted from the fact that English was widely spoken. Indeed, the personal
interviews which followed the postal survey found evidence to support the
work of W hitty (1987), namely, that some managers recruited overseas agents
Table III.
Extent of the use of
foreign languages
IJEBR
5,1
28
1-9
W hen recruiting new employees, does your
company look for people with language skills?
Yes
No
18
16
No firms’ responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
35
35
19
37
12
13
Chi square = 4.418; Sig = 0.219
1-9
Table IV.
Firms’ recruitment
and training policy
towards language
speakers
W hich statements describe your company’s policy
on language training?
The company does not provide/encourage language
training
The company relies on employees’ existing skills
Employees are allowed time off for language training
The company expects employees to pay for their
own language training
The company trains people in case a need arises
The company pays for training out of office hours
The company trains people when the need arises
The company provides in-house training
Percent of Firms’ responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
59
53
12
47
57
9
50
45
13
40
40
16
9
6
3
0
0
9
3
11
19
0
0
2
29
23
5
0
20
24
32
12
on the basis of their language ability stating that this was to some extent
almost as important as their ability to sell overseas!
However, this depended to a large extent on the complexity of the product in
question since it was pointed out by some respondents that agents, and indeed
in some cases translators, might have problems in conveying a workingbusiness translation. Instead, and supporting the findings of Hagen (1988), it
was suggested that a literal translation of technical standards and the like
might be conveyed incorrectly by non-product specialists. This had resulted in
the use of either in-house staff with linguistic abilities, especially in relation to
personal selling and attendance at exhibitions overseas, or external specialists
with linguistic and technical knowledge.
With non-complex items, the need for in-depth product knowledge, i.e.
outside of a basic understanding, may be less important. Here, language ability
in gaining a competitive edge might still prove very important. For example,
one firm noted that the switchboard operator had been trained in the basics of
several languages. On recognising a particular language, the call would be put
through to the salesperson with the appropriate linguistic ability. Consequently,
the problem of customers being put off by the use of broken English and an
unprofessional attitude towards overseas calls was hopefully minimised (DTI,
1996b).
Unfortunately, most firms pointed out cost implications associated with the
recruitment and training of language specialists and this was reflected in an
approach far removed from the previous example. Indeed, many firms did not
look to recruit language specialists or indeed support training for staff. In
pragmatic terms, this approach can be fully appreciated given the lack of
resources facing many smaller firms; also, the fact that some firms may have
low export ratios and not see language specialists as a worthwhile investment.
Even so, perhaps in an idealistic setting, firms might be encouraged to be more
responsive to recruitment and training practices in respect of the use of
languages in exporting and an understanding of general cultural matters as
well. In doing so, the impact of cross-cultural interference affecting translation
may be reduced (Brislin, 1978).
Specifically, foreign language capability “shows an interest in the culture and
customer’s country and often smoothes the path of negotiation by facilitating
social contacts; allows a relationship of trust to develop; improves the flow of
communication both to and from the market; improves ability to understand the
ethos and business practices of the market; improves ability to negotiate and
adapt product and service offerings to meet the specific needs of the customer;
and gives a psychological advantage in selling” (Turnbull, 1981). A rguably,
SMEs might do well to recognise such issues if a competitive edge is to be
obtained in dealing with operations within overseas markets.
In reality, however, it is debatable whether smaller firms will be customer
driven in their lang uage practices fo r some time to come and their
competitiveness in international markets may be affected by this. W hile there
may be a potential lack of awareness by some managers regarding the full
importance of dealing in a foreign language, the extent to which a number of
those who claimed to recognise the importance are actually reacting to this is
questionable. In turn, this demonstrates a lack of international marketing
orientation by managers of some SMEs and it may prove beneficial to become
more customer focused. In particular, this focus extends to support staff such as
those in secretarial and receptionist positions who may be the first port of call
for potential orders or at least general communication. Nevertheless, with the
number of business g raduates with linguistic abilities increasing, likewise,
TECs and Business Links supporting training initiatives such as the “Investors
in People” award, employment and training of staff within this context may
prove beneficial to firms in the future. This might especially be the case within
SMEs which have a large proportion of business in overseas markets. In the
meantime, policy makers appear to need to bridge the gap between some SMEs’
perceived importance of language use and actual implementation of strategies
to address this within their firms. Issues such as this provide an interesting
basis for future studies which might take this work forward.
References
A lmaney, A . (1974), “Intercultural communication and the MNC executive”, Columbia Journal of
World Business, Winter, pp. 23-8.
SMEs’ use of
languages
29
IJEBR
5,1
30
A rpan, J.S., Ricks, D.A . and Patton, D. (1974), “The meaning of miscues made by multinationals”,
Management International Review, Vol. 14 No. 4-5, pp. 3-11.
Brislin, R.W. (1978), “Contributions to cross-cultural orientation programs and power analysis to
translation/interpretation”, in Gerver, D. and Sinaiko, H. W. (Eds), Language Interpretation
and Communication, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Carson, D., Cromie, S., McGowan, P. and Hill, J. (1995), Marketing and Entrepreneurship in SMEs:
A n Innovative A pproach, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Department of Trade and Industry (1996a), Trading across Cultures, DTI, London.
Department of Trade and Industry (1996b), Business Language Strategies, DTI, London.
Department of Trade and Industry (1996c), Business Language Training, DTI, London.
Edwards, G. (1990), “It’s OK, they all speak English”, International Business Communication,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 8-12.
Embleton, D. and Hagen, S. (Eds) (1992), Languages in International Business: A Practical Guide,
Hodder & Stoughton, London.
Evening Standard (1993), “Breaking all language barriers”, 22 November.
Ferney, D. (1989), “Language skills: is reactive training enough?”, Journal of European Industrial
Training, Vol. 14 No. 9, pp. 27-30.
Hagen, S. (1988), Languages in Business: A n A nalysis of Current Needs, Newcastle Polytechnic,
Newcastle.
Hagen, S. (1992), “Language policy and strategy issues in the New Europe”, Language Learning
Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 31-4.
Henderson, N. (1979), “Doing business abroad: the problem of cultural differences”, Business
A merica, 3 December, pp. 8-9.
Herbig, P.A . and Kramer, H.E. (1991), “Cross-cultural negotiations: success throug h
understanding”, Management Decision, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 19-31.
Holden, N.J. (1989), “Towards a functional typology of languages in international business”,
Language Problems and Language Planning, Vol. 13 No. 1.
Linguatel (1995a), Survey of Language Capabilities of Exporters in Mainland Europe.
Linguatel (1995b), A Survey into the A bility of Major UK Exporters to Handle Foreign Language
Enquiries.
McIntyre, D.J. (1991), “W hen your national language is just another language”, Communication
World, May, pp. 18-21.
Marschan, R., Welch, D. and Welch, L. (1997), “Language: the forgotten factor in multinational
management”, European Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 591-8.
Metcalf, H. (1991), Foreign Language Needs of Business, Institute of Manpower Studies Report
No. 215.
Miles, L. (1993), “A n Englishman abroad”, Marketing Business, March, pp. 30-4.
Mintu-Wimsatt, A . and Gassenheimer, J.B. (1996), “Negotiation differences between two diverse
cultures: an industrial seller’s perspective”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 20-39.
Peel, M.J. and Eckart, H. (1997), “Export and language barriers in the Welsh SME sector”, Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 4, pp. 31-42.
Ricks, D.A . (1983), Big Business Blunders: Mistakes in Multinational Marketing, Irwin.
Ricks, D.A . (1984), “How to avoid business blunders abroad”, Business, April-June, pp. 3-11.
Rushby, N. (1990), “Beyond the language lab”, Personnel Management, February, p. 71.
Schloss, S. (1991), “From lay-bys to languages”, Industrial Society Magazine, June, pp. 16-17.
Shane, S. (1988), “Language and marketing in Japan”, International Journal of A dvertising, Vol. 7,
pp. 155-61.
Shipman, A . (1992), “Talking the same languages”, International Management, June, pp. 68-71.
Steiner, G. (1977), A fter Babel: A spects of Language and Translation, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
SMEs’ use of
languages
Storey, D.J. (1994), Understanding Small Business, Routledge, London.
Swift, J.S. (1990), “Marketing competence and language skills: UK firms in the Spanish market”,
International Business Communication, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 22-6.
Swift, J.S. (1991), “Foreign language ability and international marketing”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 36-49.
Swift J.S. and Swift, J.W. (1992), “A ttitudes to language learning”, Journal of European Industrial
Training, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 7-15.
Turnbull, P. (1981), “Business in Europe: the need for linguistic ability”, Occasional Paper,
UMIST.
W hitty, J.J. (1987), T he Role of the Commissioned A gent in Export Marketing: A n Exploratory
Study of the Use of A gents in France and West Germany by British Textile Machinery and
Yarn Manufacturers, unpublished MSc Dissertation, UMIST.
31
use of languages in their
export operations
Dave Crick
SMEs’ use of
languages
19
Department of Marketing, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
Keywords Export, Languages, SMEs, United Kingdom
Abstract T his paper reports on an exploratory investigation into the use of languages within UK
small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) which are engaged in export activities. Results from a
postal survey and subsequent interviews provide a contribution to the literature by reporting on
empirical findings in relation to four areas: managers’ perceived importance and benefits of using
foreign languages, issues preventing their use, the functional use of languages within businesses
and issues affecting firms’ recruitment and training in respect of languages. T he results suggest
that, although most firms are aware of the importance of languages and the benefits they can
bring, this is not reflected in their use in certain functional areas and within the recruitment and
training policies of many businesses.
Introduction
A s Herbig and Kramer (1991) point out: “T he world is growing smaller every
day. If you are not attempting to sell your products overseas, you are surely
being exposed to and competing against foreign-made products. The growth of
multinational business, the increasing interdependence of economies, the
tremendous quantity of technology transfer, the world-wide communications
capabilities and the frequent international exchanges have all created the need
to understand better and interact with those from foreign cultures”.
Interestingly, the w ay in w hich particular firms communicate w ith
individuals and organisations within foreign cultures has been shown to vary
quite considerably. Indeed, depending on the situation in w hich the
communication was undertaken, this has resulted in embarrassing situations
for the companies concerned.
One of the most common forms of communication difficulties is normally
considered to be the use of language. However, when dealing with the issue of
language, its perceived meaning needs clarification in order to place it into
context. For example, Swift (1991) points out that popular dictionary definitions
of language are “speech”, “tongue of a people”, “words used in a branch of
learning”, or “style of speech or expression”. Steiner (1977) broadens the
definition by stating that language is “only one among a multitude of graphic,
acoustic, olfactory, tactile, symbolic mechanisms of communication”.
It is, therefore, important not to restrict wider research studies involving
communication issues to spoken language (see, for example, A lmaney, 1974;
A rpan et al., 1974; Henderson, 1979; Ricks, 1983; Mintu-Wimsatt and
Gassenheimer, 1996), albeit this forms the basis of the investigation reported in
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, 1999,
pp. 19-31. © MCB University Press,
1355-2554
IJEBR
5,1
20
this paper. Indeed, Herbig and Kramer (1991) highlight particular problems
associated with non-verbal communication, since on occasions, what words fail
to convey is told through gestures and body movements. T hey point out that
seemingly harmless and even mundane behaviour such as crossing one’s leg
and exposing the soles of one’s shoes or putting hands in one’s pockets is, in
some cultures, considered poor taste, offensive, and insulting towards the host.
A s such, Herbig and Kramer suggest that non-verbal communication can
create “noise” within the cross-cultural communication process, i.e. something
w hich disto rts the intended meaning. T hey prov ide ex amples w hereby
executives may unknowingly create noise when dealing with other cultures:
slouching, chewing gum, using first names, forgetting titles, joking, wearing too
casual clothing, being overtly friendly towards the opposite sex, speaking too
loudly, being too eg alitarian with the wrong people (usually lower class),
working with one’s hands, carrying bundles, and tipping too much.
Examples such as these are affected largely by the context in which crosscultural interactions take place. A lthoug h certain similarities may ex ist
between particular countries in terms of their cultural norms, the likelihood
that problems may occur will arguably increase where an interaction takes
place with a person from a culturally more distant country. By way of example,
Herbig and Kramer (1991) point out how noise may affect US/Japanese
negotiations. T hey suggest that A mericans’ directness and their overbearing
manner may sig nal to Japanese a lack of self-control and implicit
untrustworthiness; at the very least they signal a lack of sincerity. The authors
go further to suggest that silence is another form of communication. W hereas it
is irritating to certain western cultures, silence to the Japanese means one is
projecting a favourable impression and is thinking deeply about the problem.
Turning now to the specific focus of this investigation, it is useful to consider
the use of languages in international business operations, since this is perhaps
the most obvious element of cross-cultural communication and a number of
studies have stressed the importance of this issue (see, for example, Shane,
1988; Ferney, 1989; Holden, 1989; Edwards, 1990; Rushby, 1990; Swift, 1990;
Metcalf, 1991; Schloss, 1991; Swift and Swift, 1992; Evening Standard, 1993;
Miles, 1993; Linguatel, 1995a; 1995b; Marschan et al., 1997).
Research has shown that firms in some countries have faced more difficulties
than others in this respect, some of which have relied too much on the use of
English as a widely recognised “business language” internationally. Indeed, as
Shipman (1992) points out, after Mandarin, English has the largest number of
native speakers in the world – some 700 million people. Commenting on the
results from a regional UK study the government reports that “recent research
shows nearly 33 per cent of small to medium-sized companies in the north of
England had encountered a language or cultural barrier. This figure was almost
twice as high as the one for comparable areas of Spain and Germany” (DT I,
1996a).
Clearly, the inhabitants of certain countries are more amenable to the use of
English as an international business language than others. To illustrate the
point, McIntyre (1991) provides an example cited in the Christian Science
Monitor: “You can buy all the Hondas you want in the United States without
knowing Japanese, but try to sell Buicks in Japan without the language and a
knowledge of the culture. It just doesn’t work”.
After a review of the literature, Hagen (1988) concluded that the overwhelming
message from all the studies was that UK companies were losing valuable trading
opportunities for lack of the right skills in certain languages, and many without
realising it. Consequently, it is within this context that this paper reports on
selected aspects of SMEs’ use of languages in their export operations.
Literature review
A fter a recent empirical study undertaken in Wales, Peel and Eckart (1997)
suggested that “larger firms consider language to be a more important export
impediment than do SMEs”. This observation seems peculiar given the greater
financial and human resources which are usually at the disposal of larger firms.
For example, one might expect that all things being equal, larger firms would be
more willing to employ language specialists, finance language training schemes
for staff, or even contract work out to specialists on an ad hoc basis to translate
work in to and out of foreign languages. Therefore, questions could be raised in
relation to the way in which such attitudes were reflected in firms’ performance,
although a causal relationship is difficult to explain.
The importance of languages to particular businesses and the way in which
this manifests itself in co rpo rate policy has been well documented. Fo r
example, Hagen (1992) points out that some companies are increasing their
investment in language training. Christie’s, the art dealers, now require every
employee to be fluent in at least one foreign language; Grand Metropolitan plc
has decided to include data on language ability in their management review
process, following a personnel audit. BA A plc and Hertz (UK) have introduced
an incentives scheme to encourage their personnel to learn a language.
Clearly, while some companies have made a conscious attempt to improve
their communication skills, others have not, in some cases with disastrous
results. A s the DTI (1996b) point out, when the official receivers were called in
to a company, they found a letter in the filing cabinet which was written in
German. It was untouched because no one had understood the content. T he
order found in the letter was large enough to have saved the company! This is
not to say that poor attitudes towards the use of languages will always have
such dire consequences, but the same government report highlights a number
of embarrassing situations which have arisen. For example, one company
produced their technical specification and sales literature in several languages
only to find they were claiming exceptional efficiency for their “watery sheep”
(i.e. “hydraulic rams”). In another embarrassing incident, the entire British
management of a Dutch subsidiary failed to turn up to the office party because
the details had been posted up in Dutch.
Interestingly, the issue of experimentation with languages has also been
repo rted on. In 1990, Teleconomy, a UK training company, carried out a
SMEs’ use of
languages
21
IJEBR
5,1
22
controlled language test on London companies to see how they would respond
to telephone enquiries from a foreign caller speaking French, German, Spanish,
Italian o r “Broken English”. It w as repo rted that many fo reig n callers
were confused by expressions like “s-ringin-fer-yer” (“its ringing for you”),
“putin-yerfru” (“putting you through”) and “lines-bizi-ye-old?” (“the lines are
busy, will you hold?”). Over one-third of calls failed at the switchboard and
foreign callers reported various rebuffs, including muffled nervous laughter,
long silences and responses enunciated with a high level of decibels (DT I,
1996b).
Policy makers have been keen to highlight success stories associated with
the use of languages. A s the DT I (1996c) point out, during an export drive, a
battery producer from the north-west estimated that there was a 60 per cent
increase in its sales after training 5 per cent of its workforce in French and
German. In another example, one exporter of textile machinery in Gateshead
had built a sales team of fluent Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German
and French speakers with customers in over 75 countries. Since 1990/1991 it
had seen its turnover jump from £ 18.1m to £ 31m in 1992/1993. Policy makers
have suggested (perhaps with an upbeat message which is unrepresentative)
that this approach is typical of the way many small and medium-sized UK
companies are successfully integrating a language capability with their export
strategy (DTI, 1996a).
A lthough the issue of in-house language skills has been widely reported, the
use of translation services has also been reported on within the literature. Ricks
(1984) highlights the problem of the use of translation by focusing on one of
Pepsi’s famous advertisements. He suggests that it should embody the general
theme and concept rather than be an exact or precise duplication of the original
slog an. Pepsi reportedly learned that its ad “come alive with Pepsi” was
literally translated into German to mean “come out of the grave with Pepsi”. In
A sia, it was translated as “bring your ancestors back from the dead”.
Interestingly, an additional though perhaps less publicised problem with
translation is that of sabotage, whereby a false or misleading translation may
take place for some reason, usually associated with commercial gain. Ricks
(1984) provides an example of a US company which may have been the victim
of translation sabotage. The firm tried to sell its products in the former Soviet
Union with the help of a Russian translator. The company innocently displayed
a translated poster in Moscow which, it soon discovered, said the company’s oilwell equipment was good for improving a person’s sex life. This said, however,
the use of “backtranslation” by an independent language specialist has been
commonly suggested in the literature to avoid the problem of literal translation
or indeed translation sabotage (see many international and cross-cultural texts
for more details).
Research focus
T he literature rev iew hig hlig hted that a number of issues are in need of
consideration by managers when determining their approach towards the use
of foreign languages in their businesses, although this should not be removed
from an appreciation of the particular cultural environments in which firms
operate, i.e. in addition to simply a linguistic ability! Nevertheless, this paper is
restricted to factors associated with SMEs’ use of languages rather than issues
associated with culture in a broader sense. Within this, although the factors are
inter-linked, the salient issues concerning languages within firms can arguably
be grouped into two core areas of concern, namely those relating to usage and
training. With this in mind, the specific issues within this study build on these
two core areas and focus on four themes: managers’ perceived importance and
benefits of using foreign languages, issues preventing their use, the functional
use of languages within businesses, and issues affecting firms’ recruitment and
training in respect to languages.
Within the SME sector, it would be rather restrictive from an analytical
viewpoint to present only frequencies of responses, since this would not account
for variations within the study relating to particular categories of firms.
However, although there is no single ag reed method by which to categorise
particular sizes of firms (Storey, 1994; Carson et al., 1995) – indeed, different
statistical results are likely to result from particular subjective classifications –
the categories in this paper were determined after discussions with policy
makers in the joint export promotion directorate (JEPD) in relation to firms’
number of employees.
Methodology
It should be noted that since this paper repo rts on one part of a w ider
investig ation, the methodological approach undertaken is similar to that
reported elsewhere. T he wider study addressed a number of other issues, for
example, whether differences exist between firms with varying deg rees of
ex po rt involvement, but this paper is restricted to differences between
particular sized SMEs in order to provide a more applied focus to the analysis
undertaken.
A fter reviewing the pertinent literature in this area of investigation, a draft
postal questionnaire was constructed incorporating the major issues of interest.
Subsequently, it was shown to several managers with responsibility fo r
exporting and academics deemed knowledgeable about the subject area. In
determining a sampling frame for this investigation, it was decided to restrict
this study to firms with fewer than 250 employees since it was considered that
larger firms with greater human and financial resources would be more likely to
employ language specialists and consequently skew the results of the research.
However, it was considered important that the study be restricted to firms that
were only engaged in export activities and therefore it was decided that nonexporters and those firms with overseas subsidiaries should be excluded from
the study to act as a control mechanism within the methodological approach
undertaken.
It was recognised that there would be a difficulty in identifying exporting
firms with fewer than 250 employees within most commercial sampling frames.
SMEs’ use of
languages
23
IJEBR
5,1
24
Consequently, it was decided to use a database developed from respondents to a
recent study of exporting manufacturers, although the original database from
which this was compiled was the Sells Export Directory. Furthermore, the
questionnaire used in the previous study from which the database was compiled
had a filter question to determine the ethnic origin of the owner of the firms,
since this had been an area under investig ation. In the course of the
investigation reported in this paper, the study was restricted to firms owned by
“white European” executives in an attempt to reduce cultural bias associated
with language use (further precise questions on ethnicity-related issues were
considered inappropriate to avoid racial effects on response rates).
W hen undertaking the postal survey, 400 firms were drawn from the
previously mentioned database; this figure was derived from an assumption
that about a 25 per cent response rate would be achieved prov iding
approximately 100 firms (see most classic research texts for average response
rates to postal surveys). T his was considered manageable since the database
was compiled from previous respondents to a survey and therefore, all things
being equal, the firms had a sympathetic attitude towards responding to
ex po rt-related survey s. In total, 185 firms completed the questionnaire
providing a response rate of 46.25 per cent after two mailings. Interviews were
subsequently undertaken with the executives with responsibility for exporting
(typically the owner/managing director) in 20 firms representing particular
sizes of firms and with various export ratios in order to obtain a more in-depth
perspective of issues surrounding their behaviour in respect to language use.
A lthough a figure of 20 interviews was primarily based on time and cost
limitations, it was considered representative of the overall sample since it was
approaching 10 per cent of the responses to the postal survey. It should also be
noted that after undertaking the 20 interviews, similar issues were discussed.
Consequently, it w as concluded that diminishing returns in so far as
establishing new information would have been the result of increasing the
number of interviews.
Findings
In undertaking the analysis within this investigation, it was observed that the
response rates for the particular categories of firms used by the JEPD were in
fact found to be skewed as follows: group 1 = 1-9 employees (34 responses);
g roup 2 = 10-49 (70); g roup 3 = 50-99 (56); and g roup 4 = 100 to 249 (25).
Nevertheless, whereas it could be argued that the groups might be merged to
even out the skewed response rate (especially since they were based on
subjective classifications any w ay ), it w as decided that this would be
inappropriate since they were based on the JEPD’s categorisations.
Turning now to the analysis in a little more detail, although there are a
number of issues of importance to managers and policy makers concerning the
use of languages in conducting international business activities, the findings in
this paper focus on four themes. First, managers’ perceived importance and
benefits of using foreign languages; second, issues preventing their use; third,
the functional use of languages within businesses; and, fourth, issues affecting
firms’ recruitment and training in respect to languages.
Commencing with the firms’ perceived importance and benefits of foreign
languages, the findings are summarised in Table I. Using analysis of variance
between the mean responses, it can be observed that no statistical difference
was found to exist between the firms, with all four g roups indicating, in
aggregate terms, that languages were important in their businesses. In terms of
how languages benefit/might benefit their businesses, it was interesting to note
that many firms, and particularly very small ones, perceived that this might
enhance their image and to a lesser extent increase orders; an increase in
competitiveness was not viewed as a benefit by the majority of firms. Reasons
for these perceived benefits, in addition to the obvious issues of a willingness to
do business in a customer’s language and because customers prefer to do
business in their own language, involved avoiding misunderstandings and the
fact that it provided an indication of the quality of the business. Even so,
reasons why firms did not use languages are shown in Table II. Perhaps not
surprisingly, the majority of firms indicated that this was because English is
widely spoken; lack of skills within the companies was also seen to be a factor,
and in particular, by very small firms.
1-9
How important do you believe
languages are in your business?
1.97
Firms’ mean responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
2.10
2.03
1.92
F ratio
F prob
0.402
0.751
SMEs’ use of
languages
25
Responses were rated as follows: 1 = very important; 2 = important; 3 = not very important;
4 = irrelevant
1-9
How do you think languages benefit/might benefit
your business?
Enhance image
Increased orders
Increased competitiveness
Languages do not benefit
W hy do you think languages benefit/might benefit
your company?
It shows a willingness to do business in the
customers’ language
Avoids misunderstandings
A n indication of the quality of the business
Because customers prefer to do business in their
own language
Per cent of firms’ responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
76
64
13
0
67
40
20
13
64
38
22
13
48
48
12
12
88
71
50
80
50
31
82
48
57
88
48
52
41
51
63
48
Table I.
Perceptions of the
importance and benefits
of languages in the
business
IJEBR
5,1
26
Turning now to the extent to which foreign languages were used within
businesses, the results are detailed in Table III. Only one statistical difference
was observed between the mean responses concerning the extent to which
business departments/functions use languages and this was in relation to the
receptionist/switchboard; this, perhaps surprisingly, was rated slightly higher
by the smaller firms. This said, the only department/function which had a mean
score above the mid-point on the rating scale for any of the groups of firms was
sales and marketing. Clearly, this suggests that most firms do not make too
much use of languages within most of their departmental areas. However,
within specifically the sales and marketing function, the most widely used areas
were seen to be personal selling and exhibitions, particularly by very small
firms. For the company as a whole, the major areas in which languages were
used tended to be foreign travel and received correspondence.
Finally, in terms of firms’ recruitment and training policy towards language
speakers, the findings are detailed in Table IV. A s far as recruitment was
concerned, no statistical difference was observed between the groups of firms in
relation to whether firms look to recruit new employees with language skills. In
so far as training was concerned, the statements which best reflected firms’
training policies tended to be that the company does not provide/encourage
language training and that they rely on employees’ existing skills. T his was
particularly the case w ith very small firms w hereas their larger-sized
counterparts were more likely to provide and pay for language training.
Discussion
T he purpose of the exploratory investigation reported in this paper was to
obtain a basic understanding of SMEs’ behaviour and perceptions with respect
to the use of languages within their businesses. T he issues within this study
focused on four themes: managers’ perceived importance and benefits of using
foreign languages, issues preventing their use, the functional use of languages
within businesses, and issues affecting firms’ recruitment and training in
respect to languages.
In short, it was observed that, in aggregate terms, the sample of firms rated
the importance of language use rather highly and most recognised the major
1-9
Table II.
Factors preventing
the use of languages
in the business
If you do not use languages in your business what
prevents you from using them?
English is widely spoken
Lack of skills in company
Too time-consuming
Cost involved
Not necessary
44
38
12
6
0
Per cent of firms’ responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
47
27
6
3
11
46
32
5
4
2
28
20
0
0
12
1-9
In which business departments/
functions does your company use
foreign languages and to what
extent?
Sales and marketing
Secretarial/administration
Support services
Receptionist/switchboard
Distribution
A ccounting/legal
Production/technical
Firms’ mean responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
F ratio
F prob
0.457
0.514
2.073
6.317
2.617
0.635
0.463
0.712
0.673
0.105
0.000
0.052
0.593
0.708
SMEs’ use of
languages
27
2.52
1.86
1.74
1.65
1.65
1.52
1.51
2.42
1.94
1.44
1.70
1.57
1.50
1.54
2.48
1.82
1.44
1.23
1.32
1.45
1.42
2.68
1.70
1.37
1.50
1.31
1.31
1.47
Responses were rated as follows: 1 = never; 2 = sometimes; 3 = often; 4 = very often
1-9
Per cent of firms’ responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
If languages are used in the sales and marketing
function, in which areas?
Personal selling
Exhibitions
Public relations
Promotional literature
Special promotions
Direct mail
Packaging
Branding
Market research
A dvertising
85
74
29
21
21
15
12
0
0
0
67
57
14
19
6
17
16
3
17
16
73
45
21
32
7
5
10
0
14
18
60
60
36
64
40
20
24
8
8
32
For the company as a whole, in which of the following
areas are foreign languages used?
Foreign travel
Received correspondence
Outgoing correspondence
Outgoing telephone calls
Meetings
Received orders
Presentations
Received telephone calls
Others (please state)
82
53
41
38
32
32
32
29
0
60
64
40
54
33
70
23
63
3
70
75
60
70
32
59
9
61
4
76
72
60
64
44
48
32
48
0
benefits brought about by their use. However, of those firms which did not use
languages, it was worrying to observe that many responded by stating this
resulted from the fact that English was widely spoken. Indeed, the personal
interviews which followed the postal survey found evidence to support the
work of W hitty (1987), namely, that some managers recruited overseas agents
Table III.
Extent of the use of
foreign languages
IJEBR
5,1
28
1-9
W hen recruiting new employees, does your
company look for people with language skills?
Yes
No
18
16
No firms’ responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
35
35
19
37
12
13
Chi square = 4.418; Sig = 0.219
1-9
Table IV.
Firms’ recruitment
and training policy
towards language
speakers
W hich statements describe your company’s policy
on language training?
The company does not provide/encourage language
training
The company relies on employees’ existing skills
Employees are allowed time off for language training
The company expects employees to pay for their
own language training
The company trains people in case a need arises
The company pays for training out of office hours
The company trains people when the need arises
The company provides in-house training
Percent of Firms’ responses
10-49
50-99
100-249
59
53
12
47
57
9
50
45
13
40
40
16
9
6
3
0
0
9
3
11
19
0
0
2
29
23
5
0
20
24
32
12
on the basis of their language ability stating that this was to some extent
almost as important as their ability to sell overseas!
However, this depended to a large extent on the complexity of the product in
question since it was pointed out by some respondents that agents, and indeed
in some cases translators, might have problems in conveying a workingbusiness translation. Instead, and supporting the findings of Hagen (1988), it
was suggested that a literal translation of technical standards and the like
might be conveyed incorrectly by non-product specialists. This had resulted in
the use of either in-house staff with linguistic abilities, especially in relation to
personal selling and attendance at exhibitions overseas, or external specialists
with linguistic and technical knowledge.
With non-complex items, the need for in-depth product knowledge, i.e.
outside of a basic understanding, may be less important. Here, language ability
in gaining a competitive edge might still prove very important. For example,
one firm noted that the switchboard operator had been trained in the basics of
several languages. On recognising a particular language, the call would be put
through to the salesperson with the appropriate linguistic ability. Consequently,
the problem of customers being put off by the use of broken English and an
unprofessional attitude towards overseas calls was hopefully minimised (DTI,
1996b).
Unfortunately, most firms pointed out cost implications associated with the
recruitment and training of language specialists and this was reflected in an
approach far removed from the previous example. Indeed, many firms did not
look to recruit language specialists or indeed support training for staff. In
pragmatic terms, this approach can be fully appreciated given the lack of
resources facing many smaller firms; also, the fact that some firms may have
low export ratios and not see language specialists as a worthwhile investment.
Even so, perhaps in an idealistic setting, firms might be encouraged to be more
responsive to recruitment and training practices in respect of the use of
languages in exporting and an understanding of general cultural matters as
well. In doing so, the impact of cross-cultural interference affecting translation
may be reduced (Brislin, 1978).
Specifically, foreign language capability “shows an interest in the culture and
customer’s country and often smoothes the path of negotiation by facilitating
social contacts; allows a relationship of trust to develop; improves the flow of
communication both to and from the market; improves ability to understand the
ethos and business practices of the market; improves ability to negotiate and
adapt product and service offerings to meet the specific needs of the customer;
and gives a psychological advantage in selling” (Turnbull, 1981). A rguably,
SMEs might do well to recognise such issues if a competitive edge is to be
obtained in dealing with operations within overseas markets.
In reality, however, it is debatable whether smaller firms will be customer
driven in their lang uage practices fo r some time to come and their
competitiveness in international markets may be affected by this. W hile there
may be a potential lack of awareness by some managers regarding the full
importance of dealing in a foreign language, the extent to which a number of
those who claimed to recognise the importance are actually reacting to this is
questionable. In turn, this demonstrates a lack of international marketing
orientation by managers of some SMEs and it may prove beneficial to become
more customer focused. In particular, this focus extends to support staff such as
those in secretarial and receptionist positions who may be the first port of call
for potential orders or at least general communication. Nevertheless, with the
number of business g raduates with linguistic abilities increasing, likewise,
TECs and Business Links supporting training initiatives such as the “Investors
in People” award, employment and training of staff within this context may
prove beneficial to firms in the future. This might especially be the case within
SMEs which have a large proportion of business in overseas markets. In the
meantime, policy makers appear to need to bridge the gap between some SMEs’
perceived importance of language use and actual implementation of strategies
to address this within their firms. Issues such as this provide an interesting
basis for future studies which might take this work forward.
References
A lmaney, A . (1974), “Intercultural communication and the MNC executive”, Columbia Journal of
World Business, Winter, pp. 23-8.
SMEs’ use of
languages
29
IJEBR
5,1
30
A rpan, J.S., Ricks, D.A . and Patton, D. (1974), “The meaning of miscues made by multinationals”,
Management International Review, Vol. 14 No. 4-5, pp. 3-11.
Brislin, R.W. (1978), “Contributions to cross-cultural orientation programs and power analysis to
translation/interpretation”, in Gerver, D. and Sinaiko, H. W. (Eds), Language Interpretation
and Communication, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Carson, D., Cromie, S., McGowan, P. and Hill, J. (1995), Marketing and Entrepreneurship in SMEs:
A n Innovative A pproach, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Department of Trade and Industry (1996a), Trading across Cultures, DTI, London.
Department of Trade and Industry (1996b), Business Language Strategies, DTI, London.
Department of Trade and Industry (1996c), Business Language Training, DTI, London.
Edwards, G. (1990), “It’s OK, they all speak English”, International Business Communication,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 8-12.
Embleton, D. and Hagen, S. (Eds) (1992), Languages in International Business: A Practical Guide,
Hodder & Stoughton, London.
Evening Standard (1993), “Breaking all language barriers”, 22 November.
Ferney, D. (1989), “Language skills: is reactive training enough?”, Journal of European Industrial
Training, Vol. 14 No. 9, pp. 27-30.
Hagen, S. (1988), Languages in Business: A n A nalysis of Current Needs, Newcastle Polytechnic,
Newcastle.
Hagen, S. (1992), “Language policy and strategy issues in the New Europe”, Language Learning
Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 31-4.
Henderson, N. (1979), “Doing business abroad: the problem of cultural differences”, Business
A merica, 3 December, pp. 8-9.
Herbig, P.A . and Kramer, H.E. (1991), “Cross-cultural negotiations: success throug h
understanding”, Management Decision, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 19-31.
Holden, N.J. (1989), “Towards a functional typology of languages in international business”,
Language Problems and Language Planning, Vol. 13 No. 1.
Linguatel (1995a), Survey of Language Capabilities of Exporters in Mainland Europe.
Linguatel (1995b), A Survey into the A bility of Major UK Exporters to Handle Foreign Language
Enquiries.
McIntyre, D.J. (1991), “W hen your national language is just another language”, Communication
World, May, pp. 18-21.
Marschan, R., Welch, D. and Welch, L. (1997), “Language: the forgotten factor in multinational
management”, European Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 591-8.
Metcalf, H. (1991), Foreign Language Needs of Business, Institute of Manpower Studies Report
No. 215.
Miles, L. (1993), “A n Englishman abroad”, Marketing Business, March, pp. 30-4.
Mintu-Wimsatt, A . and Gassenheimer, J.B. (1996), “Negotiation differences between two diverse
cultures: an industrial seller’s perspective”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 20-39.
Peel, M.J. and Eckart, H. (1997), “Export and language barriers in the Welsh SME sector”, Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 4, pp. 31-42.
Ricks, D.A . (1983), Big Business Blunders: Mistakes in Multinational Marketing, Irwin.
Ricks, D.A . (1984), “How to avoid business blunders abroad”, Business, April-June, pp. 3-11.
Rushby, N. (1990), “Beyond the language lab”, Personnel Management, February, p. 71.
Schloss, S. (1991), “From lay-bys to languages”, Industrial Society Magazine, June, pp. 16-17.
Shane, S. (1988), “Language and marketing in Japan”, International Journal of A dvertising, Vol. 7,
pp. 155-61.
Shipman, A . (1992), “Talking the same languages”, International Management, June, pp. 68-71.
Steiner, G. (1977), A fter Babel: A spects of Language and Translation, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
SMEs’ use of
languages
Storey, D.J. (1994), Understanding Small Business, Routledge, London.
Swift, J.S. (1990), “Marketing competence and language skills: UK firms in the Spanish market”,
International Business Communication, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 22-6.
Swift, J.S. (1991), “Foreign language ability and international marketing”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 36-49.
Swift J.S. and Swift, J.W. (1992), “A ttitudes to language learning”, Journal of European Industrial
Training, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 7-15.
Turnbull, P. (1981), “Business in Europe: the need for linguistic ability”, Occasional Paper,
UMIST.
W hitty, J.J. (1987), T he Role of the Commissioned A gent in Export Marketing: A n Exploratory
Study of the Use of A gents in France and West Germany by British Textile Machinery and
Yarn Manufacturers, unpublished MSc Dissertation, UMIST.
31