Globish: Business Communication for Non-Native Speakers
Jean-Paul Nerrière | 2012
There is no choice left.
There is no choice left, English is and will remain the language of international communication. Many languages have been seen as the language of the world at some point in history. But this occurred during periods when the average person's idea of the world was limited to a small piece of what the world is today. Greek and Latin enjoyed the world language position for the Roman Empire, beyond which nothing existed for the Romans. Russian was seen as universal, but this was largely within the Soviet Union and the Pact of Warsaw. French used to be the language of the upper class in many countries until 1918, but this was in the European culture only.
Because of both extensive world trade and wartime victories, English began to build its strong language position in the 19th century. For many more reasons, it is now established everywhere for international communication, in many professions and especially for business. There will be no step back. For the first time ever in history, communication is now truly global, and it happens in less than a second. The average person's world has thus grown hugely. That world is no longer a little piece of the earth, but the whole globe. The once-extreme importance of Latin, and Russian, and French -- each in its turn -- now becomes just an interesting sidelight to history.
Another country might, in the future, replace the USA as the leading economic, cultural or military power (or all three). It may well be a non-English-speaking country. But its language, whatever it might be, would not replace English as the worldwide language. To achieve such an outstanding position, that country will need excellent businesspeople. These businesspeople will succeed because, among many skills, they will master enough English to win their economic battles. They will not see any need to export their mother tongue, and they will thus most probably be supporters of English. They will know that speaking in their mother tongue, when it is foreign to others, will give them no edge at all. (This is exactly the opposite of what most people think about speaking with native English speakers today.)
But who speaks English?
Most of my American or British friends would think I do. But I do not think so. I understand them, and they understand my English most of the time. However, I do not speak like them, and it is clear from the first second that English is not my mother tongue. (See Sidebar: What is the situation in France?)
People like you or me are the huge majority. That is, we own the world language, and may soon own the world. Native English-speakers are at most 12% of mankind, and this counts many who live in countries where English is only one of several official languages, like India.
The rest of us speak and use some English. We have a variety of understandable pronunciations. We have a grammar which is clear but not long-winded, and a number of tricks to make sure we are understood. With all of this, we manage to get our message across, in enough situations to be happy with it.
My observation, of over forty years now, is that we Globish speakers manage better among us than when we are working with native English speakers. It is because together we understand our limitations better. This light struck me full on in Tokyo, in September of 1989. I had just been appointed Vice President of IBM USA, in charge of International Marketing; and I was visiting Japan, the biggest market for IBM after the USA. A team of Americans working for me was on the same trip. These Americans quickly silenced all Japanese responses in the conference rooms with their large number of words, spoken so quickly in such long sentences.
On the other hand, I observed that my “poor” communication with my Japanese fellows, and Japanese executives of leading international customers, was somehow more effective. There was clearly more trust between us. These Japanese top leaders had been bravely entering a discussion where their limited English could lead to shame. With my limited English, I was losing face more than often, but they saw that I had good fun about it. When that ice was broken, the non-native English (you may read Globish) speakers were a great deal more comfortable.
It was clear then that because of their extensive English, my American employees were the ones creating the distance. The Japanese leaders thought they could have tried harder to understand us. This distance could not happen between the employees and me, of course. I was the boss, and accepted many shameful occasions as a fact of life in international communication. I knew I was a respectable boss, and a fairly effective one. My command of English would not have made me a better one, even if it had been perfect.
I found this truth: “There is something wrong in this world, it seems. We are all supposed to speak English, and my Japanese friend Satake-san, whose English is not better than mine, communicates better with me than with Ted and Dick (from IBM), who have English as a mother tongue.”
While Satake-san and the Japanese executives I met were doing their best, they were not really speaking a high level of English (just like me). I understood that they had limitations in their English, and I had limitations in mine. And, (good news!), these limitations were not exactly the same, but still not very different. None of non-native speakers would use unfamiliar words like "eerie," "spooky," or "skittery." This was why we felt comfortable with each other. I decided that if I could make the limitations identical, the result would be the same as if we had no limitation left at all. In theory, all communication would then be perfect. I just needed to observe closely, and set these limitations to what would be “enough” English.
When back in the office in Armonk, near New York City, I had a meeting with my whole team. I told them, “You think your command of English is a plus, that it gives you an edge. Not all, it is a handicap. What is spoken around the world might be written like English, sounds like English, tastes like English, but it is not English. I will give it a different name, and call it 'Globish,' because, if I called it 'simple English,' you would also say again, 'This is still MY English, but simple. I can make mine simple, it is easy.' However, it is not easy at all, you will have to adapt and understand and be understood by our Japanese customers better. Otherwise we will lose businesses there.”
Needless to say, they were shocked.
Sidebar: What is the situation in France?
It is terrible, much worse than in Japan, for at least three reasons:
1)- The majority of students study only in written form.
In my country, most of the teachers are not interested in preparing their students for an international business life. This is true in high school, or even in colleges not specializing in foreign languages. They focus on the wonderful Anglo-Saxon culture, the literature. They do not want to prepare “ready made products” for the needs of the businesses. With this, the goal of learning English is to pass a test, and then enter college. A minority of the teachers has a different view: they want their students to have the best chance of getting a job. Theirs are the only students who will enter active life just after high school without going to college and university. These teachers want their students to get jobs fast. Thus they work more on the real issue for students, which is being able to work in an international environment as soon as there is a need. Those are the ones who support Globish. The overall result, however, is that the majority of French students study English which is presented and understood only in written form.
2)- Our French ears are not trained to the features of English.
This is all the more a problem since there is no accentuation in French, no stressed syllable, as opposed to English and a number of other languages. The result is that our French ears are not trained to this feature of English. We do not notice there is an accentuation when we hear a word, and we cannot reproduce what we cannot hear. When we learn the words from their written forms, we think the word “international” (which exists with exactly the same spelling in my language) should be pronounced the same way as it is French. Nobody would ever understand, unless he is also French.
3)- The French are terribly unsure.
They do not believe enough in themselves. They are most concerned about losing face, perhaps more so than my Japanese friends. “Ridicule will kill you” is a saying everybody here knows. Most people do not even try to speak English, especially with native English speakers. They are afraid of and think they will not be up to expectations. In a group, when one of them wants to say something important, he starts preparing in his mind the pretty sentence he will use. When he is finally ready, the discussion has already gone elsewhere, it is too late, and my poor friend keeps silent. The group missed his ideas, and he is very upset, at himself and at the group. If I may be forgiven the comparison, on average the Germans do not speak English better than we French, but they do not care. They step forth and speak out, happily saying what they have to say, whatever the quality of their English, and they do not seem to suffer any shame.
English doesn’t indicate your skills as a professional.
Does your command of English indicate your skills as a professional? Not at all, you are a good professional, and this has nothing to do with whether your English is excellent or not. The truth is that, if my child had a severe brain bleeding while in Osaka, I would try to find the best brain doctor in Osaka. I would certainly not want the one who speaks English best but does not have the best experience.
Large multinational or international companies tend to forget that. They push up the foreigners with the best English, for the simple comfort of the ones who are at the top, especially in American based companies. With better English, even bad ideas are at least easier for their bosses to understand. On the other hand, useful and inventive thinking is often overlooked completely. This is a very serious mistake in too many large companies. They do not put their child in the hands of the best doctor, but with the doctor who sounds most like them. In the IBM of the late 70's, there were forty IBM Vice Presidents (the highest rank under the Management Committee, usually four American members). Thirty nine of the VPs were Americans, while half of the businesses were already coming from abroad… Was there not anything wrong?
Failures are covered up.
Does this intercultural difference and communication problem result in failures? Quite often it does, but only a few can be recorded, and become known. Such business failures happen, but they are not often seen as a direct outcome of an international communication problem. Excuses are usually found elsewhere. However, recently The Economist had their Intelligence Unit poll 572 top executives worldwide on the true cost of language differences. That report says that nearly half the executives at global companies believe language barriers have spoiled cross-border deals and caused financial losses for their companies.
Outside of business, failures are much easier to identify. We know the case of the Avianca Flight 52, which crashed near JFK Airport close to New York City, on January 25th, 1990, after the crew tried many times to tell the control tower that they were running out of fuel in the middle of a terrible snow-storm. Had they been able to communicate better with the American controllers, 73 people might not have lost their lives.
Or take the very sad story of Yoshihiro Hattori, who was shot dead in October 1992 in Louisiana by a homeowner who thought Hattori-san was dangerous. The homeowner shouted, “freeze,” with a very threatening handgun in his hand. However, Hattori-san did not know that, in American English, “freeze” (become ice) can have more than one meaning (in this case, “Don’t move!”).
In the business world, there must be many similar stories, quickly covered up and blamed on other causes. I was one of the leading representatives of IBM in the deal our company closed with Amadeus, the airline reservation system created in Europe in 1987. Our competitor was Unisys (the company built by joining Burroughs with Sperry-Univac, and at that point the long time supplier of Air France). Air France was leading the discussions, also representing Lufthansa, Iberia, and SAS, the other early fathers of Amadeus. On one hand, the Unisys CEO and most important representative was W. Michael Blumenthal, former Secretary of the Treasury of the USA in the Administration of President Jimmy Carter. I remember a meeting in Madrid where one of the participants reported that the discussion with this gentleman had not been easy, although he was one of the best travelled Americans you could dream of, having also left Nazi Germany for the USA at age 13; of course his English was perfect.
Now I ask: Was my very limited English, in support of the CEO of IBM for Europe, more suitable for this group, where no-one else was English speaking by birth? I cannot tell for sure. All I know is that IBM declared later that the outstanding technology and the creativity of the sales team had made all the difference. On the other side, I suspect Unisys found another nice explanation for losing. Who would blame communication difficulties? Who could realize there could have been any such difficulty? In global communication, people do not tell you when you are not communicating well; they just keep smiling, hoping that things will get better soon. Only non-native speakers can see a difference.
Victories and failures have a lot to do with the effectiveness and the comfort of communication, but are not described as such. Credit for them is usually given to better quality of the offering on the winning side, or to unfair competitive practices or lack of the right products on the losing side.
The better way to attack global communication.
The first duty in Globish, is to make the learner realize and accept that, if he or she is an excellent international accountant, this has nothing to do with his command of English. And an excellent command of English does not make him a better accountant. If he or she is part of a group, it is because he can bring something on the subject under discussion, or in the decision which is expected. Then, all the members must listen to him, and listen carefully, until they are sure they gained from him what he could bring to the table.
This is clearly the participant’s duty to reach a level I indicate as “enough English.” It is not Oxford English, but it is enough for the business needs. Then, it is the duty of the other participants to adapt their own communication to this exact level, in order to be understood also by him and the others. The usual native speaker’s position is where he just points his finger in the direction of the other side of the river, and tells us, “You must join me there. Swim!” This is their side, the real full English side, where they feel comfortable, as they believe they are the best in communication with the mother tongue they have enjoyed from the day they were born.
All of this is wrong. It is their duty, and, more importantly, it is their interest, to join us in the island in the middle of the river, and not let us swim hopelessly and die in the river when we cannot reach their side.
This is why there is a sentence you will never hear in Globish, it just does not exist: “You do not understand,” which translates for us as: “If YOU do not understand ME, it means YOU have a problem, please fix YOUR problem.” The forbidden sentence has to be replaced by “I am not making myself clear.” In this new idea, the responsibility for being understood is not on the one who is listening, but on the person who is speaking. Perfect English is no good if you are not understood. Being understood is what is needed, even if you are not perfect.
Since those days at IBM when I first presented the idea of Globish, I have worked to make Globish a more distinct tool for international communication. Using the 1500 basic Globish words I used in this article, whole books on the subject have been written, and have now been translated into 10 languages including Chinese, Russian, Spanish, and Portuguese. (The new book we are working on now enlarges much more on this article, and on the place Globish will have in world business.)
What is “Globish”?
Globish is this idea: We can all communicate better if we stick to simple rules. These include a limited set of words, short and simple sentences which result in a simple English grammar, and a pronunciation which is understandable. Most importantly, the language responsibility falls on the person who is trying to communicate. There is a need for everyone, certainly including the native English speakers, to adapt to using Globish at that level. Operating on this common ground provides everyone a better understanding of one’s own professional ability. But it also creates a higher level of respect for persons who must be valued for their skills, if not for their English quite yet. A number of distinct practices can improve the strength and quality of such communication within just a few minutes, as soon as they are understood, but they would be too long to describe in this document (short summary under “The Ten Basic Rules of Globish” in Exhibit).
There have been many questions and arguments surrounding Globish since my first book [1] on that was a best seller in Europe, and these continue through our second (recent) best seller [2] in Japan. Most objections come from professors and other English language teachers who have secure professional areas they wish to protect against new ideas. But “Globish” is not a language, as a language is the vehicle of a culture. If you want to enjoy William Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, or Mark Twain, study English. However, if you want to close business deals in Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Moscow, Istanbul, or Beijing, Globish is what you need. Globish is enough English, and more than that would usually be too much. Speak Globish; you will be speaking like the people you will be meeting with. What else is needed?
Perhaps a standards-setting group, to make sure Globish remains consistent across various cultures. Currently, the Globish Foundation, a non-profit voluntary organization in Australia, provides the international Globish standards and testing.
Exhibit. The Ten Basic Rules of Globish
1. Whoever speaks or writes is responsible for being understood, the other person is never guilty.
2. Use only words in the Globish glossary (1500 words).
3. Use mostly active voice.
4. Keep sentences short (15 words or fewer).
5. Repeat yourself.
6. Avoid metaphors, colorful expressions, and idioms.
7. Avoid negative questions.
8. Avoid all humor.
9. Avoid acronyms.
What should large corporations do?
Native English speakers may realize one fact all too late, and that fact won't reverse itself. The Chinese and the Brazilians and eventually the Vietnamese and the Thais, and others, are the ones bringing vast amounts of new wealth to be shared at your table. Clearly, you will do much better at that table if they will talk with you.
On this point, Japanese, German, or French companies are much better off than American companies, just because their leading executives are less demanding on the command of English. They are ready to accept an in-between level instead of a close-to-perfect one. They can work with foreign partners who are far from perfect with English. The story of the brain doctor works for them, in their best interest, they get the highest quality treatment for their child.
Most of them have, nonetheless, a special liking for whatever is written in the nicest English. Letters to the employees worldwide, to all the foreign companies, notes or guidances to the sales partners and dealers, or to the suppliers, annual report to the stockholders, are written by ex-students from Oxford or Cambridge, to make sure they are tasteful in appearance, and provide clear evidence of a high level culture. Better English seems to mean a better social status… Completely wrong! All of this should be written in the most simple, but still perfectly correct English. The result would be that 10 times more people would read it immediately, and get the message. While today, in most cases, too many have to wait for a translation which is always too late, if ever available, and cannot be perfectly exact.
The same applies to speeches or videos of the CEO and the other high level executives who, all too often, try to sound English or American. This is not thinking of the target population. Simpler is better, and has been defined in the Globish books, as well as demonstrated enough and working well.
Software tools can help get the result, where the message is identical, but the wording is simple and understandable by much larger numbers of readers. What seems necessary is to make this an official policy, and announce that the communication tool in this corporation is no longer English but Globish.
The persons who dislike the too-powerful ruling of English as a worldwide language will, on top of that, be delighted with this decision.
Once the decision is made, the savings are huge in terms of time, money, and good will. Bringing all the players in one company to this Globish level is faster, easier, and much less expensive than requiring very high English abilities. Once the employees and the other players are at this Globish level, they understand all that is communicated. With this new attitude, Globish training can be an easy fit, and Globish can start with most English beginners. Most people in business will have 350 very basic words in English, if just from being at school or seeing entertainment in English. This is the starting point we work on.
The position of English as THE worldwide language is changing, and coming to an end, as more and more non-native English speakers are using it far from the Queen’s or Mickey Mouse’s standards. When they feel they are expected to exhibit too much English, this becomes just as great a problem as when they have too little. Globish -- that level of English that most the world uses -- is limited, but can certainly be enough. It just needs to be organized and defined with limits and conditions, and this is the goal of Globish.
-- Jean-Paul Nerrière
Notes:
[1] Jean-Paul Nerriere, Parlez Globish!: Don’t speak English, Eyrolles, 2004.
[2] Jean-Paul Nerriere and David Hon, Globish the World Over, International Globish Institute, 2009. (Japanese version: Toyo Keizai, 2011.)
