On a daily basis, I see how language barriers hinder both potential and personal interactions in the workplace. This challenge is prevalent in most non-English-speaking countries, where the same stories unfold across countless organizations. I often question whether the decision to use English as the operating language is made thoughtfully, with a genuine understanding of its consequences.
Many are familiar with the scene: skilled colleagues, assured in their expertise, falter during key presentations and discussions, struggling to express themselves in a second language; once-vocal peers fall silent; talented individuals hesitate to seize opportunities. As a result, they can become hollow versions of themselves.
It’s a question worth asking: is it really worth it? Personally, I find myself growing more skeptical. Reduced creativity and compromised communication result in slower innovation, diminished vitality of ideas, and weakened authenticity in relationships. For many companies, the costs outweigh the benefits.
“But… but…” you might say,
It Will Get Us Loads More Applicants!
If expanding your talent pool is your main objective, I’ll expect you to equally advocate for transforming your organization into a fully remote model. However, if you’re still tied to a specific location due to a physical offices or operations, using English may only slightly increase the number of candidates, with benefits being short-lived and marginal.
Moreover, maintaining local roots can be a crucial asset. Some companies treat specialized skills as mere commodities that can be outsourced to lower-wage countries. While discussing the flaws of this mindset is beyond the scope of this post, I encourage you to reflect on the benefits of having your team intuitively better understand the culture, language, and background of your users and collegues. Is it possible without? Of course, but it’s a distinct advantage.
It’s the Default for Modern Organizations or Our Industry!
Just because everyone else is doing something doesn’t mean you should blindly follow the herd. While English might be the default language for software you use, partner communication, or even other branches of your company, local teams can still benefit greatly from collaborating in their native language.
It doesn’t have to be black-and-white. I’m advocating for being conservative, not dogmatic. You can still write long-lived documentation and code in English, where you draw the line is ultimately up to you, but it’s important to be mindful of the trade-offs.
We Might Become a Huge Global Company in the Future!
You might, but you’re not there today. Most workplace documentation is ephemeral—–covering policies, day-to-day processes, and rapidly evolving systems. Writing these documents in your local language now, with the option to translate them later if it becomes necessary, can be far more cost-effective than prematurely switching everything to English.
Additionally, many organizations, such as national banks or public services focused on serving local citizens, may never expand internationally, making this concern irrelevant. Yet, they still adopt English as if it’s a potion they must consume. Some even settle for awkward hybrid compromises that makes everyone confused.
I’m Really Good in English!
Confidence in your English skills can be misleading, as highlighted by the Dunning-Kruger effect. Research consistently shows that second-language proficiency rarely matches native fluency, often revealing significant gaps between perception and reality – see research section below if you’re interested. Even if you’re among the rare individuals with equally strong skills in both languages, it’s crucial to place the organization’s interests above your personal preferences.
It’s Great for Diversity!
Let me first start by stating the obvious: a world where everyone speaks a single language is much less diverse. In the context of preserving linguistic diversity, Karl Ove Knausgård’s insight reminds us that boundaries and differences, including those in language, are what give life its meaning:
Boundaries create differences. Differences create meaning. And that is why humanity’s primal anxiety is about the lack of differences. In it, it is obliterated.
(Book 6, My Struggle)
Ironically, enforcing English for all in the workplace can strip discussions of cultural nuances and silence those who aren’t fluent. This assumes a common language guarantees better communication, missing the richness that individuals bring. Prioritizing one global language can unintentionally encourage uniformity over true diversity. True diversity goes beyond skin color, sex, or nationality; it’s about embracing the unique perspectives each person offers. Every individual holds vast depth, and you don’t need to look globally to enrich diversity of thought. By cultivating high trust within the team, we can tap into personal insights, uncovering a wealth of creativity that drives innovation.
The Research
Research backs up these observations.
- Ljosland (2008) found that while English can help with international collaboration, it often cuts down linguistic richness and confidence, causing non-native speakers to censor themselves, which leads to less creative and critical conversations.
- Svennevig (2012) observed that English meetings often use simpler sentences and vocabulary, pushing less fluent speakers aside and reducing innovation.
- Lønsmann (2014) pointed out that using English as a corporate language favors those who are proficient, leaving others behind and lowering trust, which results in safe, simple expressions instead of creative, genuine communication.
- Kankaanranta & Planken (2010) showed that even when people speak English fluently, it doesn’t always lead to effective business communication, as detailed negotiation needs deeper understanding.
- Lauring (2011) demonstrated that teams working in a non-native language tend to take fewer risks, simplifying ideas to avoid misunderstandings, leading to less complexity and originality in decisions.
- Marschan-Piekkari, Welch & Welch (1999) illustrated how English-focused workplaces often create “shadow structures” where those fluent in English dominate networks, silencing diverse viewpoints and undermining inclusion.
An Irreversible Decision
Switching to English isn’t just an operational change; it’s a major, irreversible decision. Jeff Bezos put it best:
Some decisions are consequential and irreversible or nearly irreversible—one-way doors—and these decisions must be made methodically, carefully, slowly, with great deliberation and consultation.
Before making such a decision, organizations should weigh the inherent strengths of their native language against the assumed benefits of linguistic conformity, recognizing the vibrant source of innovation and unity that their roots and language truly offer.
P.S.: For those tempted to point out the irony of this article being written in English, let me clarify—when crafting these blog posts, I have the luxury of time and access to various tools that assist me. These resources aren’t readily available in day-to-day interactions. Finally, I write purely for my own enjoyment, without the pressing goals of delivering value to customers or answering to shareholders..