problems mandating english in multinational companies update 23-11-14.comments (1)

7/26/2019 Problems Mandating English in Multinational Companies UPDATE 23-11-14.Comments (1)

1/24

UNDER THE GUISE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION: PROBLEMS WITH

MANDATING ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA IN A COLOMBIAN

MULTINATIONAL

ABSTRACT

There have been increasing efforts to support internationalization and the spread of English

as a lingua franca in multinational companies in Colombia. The question that is posed is

whether workers are willing to accept this change and keep work efforts up to a high

standard. English is said to be a sensitive subject, causing language barriers and

interpersonal communication problems. The loss of status, culture, communication anxiet

and motivation of the workforcecan show that communication competence could be one of

the main reasons behind wh language activates asmmetries in language, divides teams

into subgroups and affects group dnamics. To understand the question of !English" and the

problems companies face in Colombia, we interviewed #$% participants from a Colombian

petrol compan, C&'()TE*)+T(&)+'. &ur findings bring to light the barriers that

companies face with mandating English as a lingua franca and the possible solutions that

we could provide companies in a similar situation.

1. INTRODUCTION

&ver recent ears English has become a necessar means to communicate globall. (t has

seen a rise in its popularit as a cohesive communication tool that connects and creates

opportunities with foreign investors and clients. (n Colombia, -Es mall -edium ized

Enterprises/ and multinational corporations -)C/ have been at the forefront in the use of

English as a communication tool for international business Charles 0 -arschan12iekkari,

#33#/.

The Colombian government has focused most of their efforts on continued economic

growth and !internationalization". 4arious public and private institutions have backed this

initiative, with notable high1profile campaigns such as 56ilingual Colombia7 and the

5)ational 2olic for Competitiveness and 2roductivit7 setting the benchmark for

companies looking to compete locall and internationall Truscott de -ej8a 0 &rdo9ez,

1


2/24

#33$/. These two campaigns are an example of Colombia"s ambitious goal of positioning

itself as one of the top countries for foreign investment.

Colombia"s recent free trade agreement signings with various countries and the agape but

confident peace talks between the :+*C *evolutionar +rmed :orces of Colombia/ andColombian government show potential and interest from foreign investors. +s a result, of

Colombia"s economic growth and internationalization efforts, numerous companies in

Colombia have started to hire bilingual emploees to communicate with foreign investors

and clients. +lso, the have started to develop the foreign language skills of their staff to

compete in the local and global market.

;owever, implementing English as a -)C lingua franca has implicationsfor management,

human resources, and emploee satisfaction -irjaliisa0 Charles, #33$/. The foreign

language 1in this case, English1 used becomes a sensitive issue, affecting relations between

native and non1native speakers and often causes language barriers that affect interpersonal

interaction and relationships ;enderson, #33/. The loss of status, communication anxiet, time and

motivation of the workforce are important variables that need to be closel administered

and considered in order to devise an effective training plan )eele, #3%#/. Considering

these specific points will allow companies to find creative was of implementing English

into the workplace as the lingua franca.

2


3/24

;ence, to analze the complexit of mandating English as a lingua franca and the

relationship it has with English language learning. ?e must consider cultural, political and

social norms within a -)C that act upon a group or an individual"s predisposition to

assimilate or accept the use of English as a second language ;arzing 0 :eel, #33@/.

Emploees undertaking this corporate language change ma feel frustrated and could show

signs of resistance #3%>, 4alencia/. Emploees ma see change as a potential barrier

against their career development and the promotional path the have set for themselves

within a -)C #3%>, 4alencia/. 6ringing to light further issues on how the politics of

language choice affect work and workers in a -)C 4aara, Tienari, 2iekkari, 0 Antti,

#33/, cultural diversit and better

understanding problems that language creates 'auring, =., 0 litmDller, #3%/.

(n this article, ( examine the role, problems and needs that mandating English brings to a

growing Canadian -)C petrol compan C&'()TE*)+T(&)+', a pseudonm/ with

headquarters based out of Colombia. Thus, m aim is to analse the level of importance

English holds for the emploees, wh the need it, and what can help them assimilate the

use of English and as a result drop language barriers. ?e will do this b studing the

communication perceptions and experiences of emploees that have increased their

engagement with English and stakeholders internationall.

?e have used a mixed method of qualitative and quantitative research, which included

interviews with C&'()TE*)+T(&)+' directors, eight different focus groups with three

to four members of each of these departments, and a surve online/ that was applied to #$%

emploees working in various roles, departments and teams at the ;ead &ffice Colombia/.

The number of participants that took part in the surve were %F less than the required

amount for a population size of n=1000, 5% Margin of Error and Confidence level=95%.

The ideal size would have been nG#F@ but with the mixed method, the data collected from

the qualitative procedure will strengthen this apparent weakness.

The purpose behind emploing such methods can be described as a wa to expand the

scope or breadth of research to mitigate the weaknesses of either approach on its own.

Hriscoll, Ieboah, alib, *upert, #33F/.7 (t was believed that in the data collection process,

3


4/24

one form of data with the other form could address different tpes of questions and be

easil compared Cresswell 0 2lano Clark, #33F/. The questions that were being proposed

involved levels of familiarit or perceptions with using English in the compan. +lthough

the structured response from the surve provided an agreeable amount of data that could be

denoted as standard the qualitative data opened a field of in which to explore and explain

complex or contradictor surve responses Hriscoll, Ieboah, alib, *upert, #33F/.7.

)evertheless, there are challenges and limitations with the use of qualitative research

methods when data is codified and the depth and flexibilit of the responses from

interviews or focus groups is lost. Juantitized data can be fixed, one1dimensional and

time1consuming Hriscoll, Ieboah, alib, *upert, #33F/.7

This methodolog enables researchers to discover the diverse levels of language

competence and barriers that affect team dnamics and discovered how to better understand

and find new and creative was of preventing risks and identifing opportunities of

implementing English as a lingua franca in multinationals.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Language !na"#$% an $&""un#$a'#&n a(an$e #n MNC%

*esearch in communication avoidance and language dnamics ;enderson, #33K 'auring 0 elmer, #3%3/. ;owever, language diversit in -)Cs is said to break

trust and team building efforts :eel 0 ;arzing, #33>/, considering that not all emploees

4


5/24

share the same level of fluenc )eele, #3%>/, and the growing need to communicate in a

language that one does not feel competent in could cause emploees to avoid

communication, create language asmmetries and subgrouping in -)Cs ;arzing 0

:eel,#33@K Liles 0 =ohnson, %M@%/.

*esearch on group diversit and subgroup dnamics 'au 0 -urnighan, %MM@/, has

introduced the idea of group faultlines that characterize the alignment across group

members and increases our understanding of how demographics age, tenure, gender and

ethnicit/ influences conflict and behavioral disintegration in -)Cs. ?e have come to an

understanding that subgrouping occurs more in heterogeneous subgroups than those groups

that are more homogeneous in nationalit. ;inds, )eele and Cramton #3%#/ go further to

identif that language asmmetries cause powerful subgroup dnamics, 5acting as a

lightning rod or a conduit for intense emotion that was then reflected in behaviours and

further exacerbated tensions p. #>F/.7 6ut how can we identif the powerful role of

language asmmetries as faultline dimensionsN ?e have found communication avoidance

literature to have analsed and discovered state, behavioural, and cognitive explanations

towards the reluctance of individuals to communicate with other individuals based

primaril based on language barriers in a second, learned language. These explanations

span from a !state" perspective 2earson, Child, HeLreeff, emlak, 0 6urnett, #3%%/ to a

more trait1like characteristic 1 behavioural, cognitive and affective reason 6ell, %M@$/.

?here in the former, communication avoidance is characterized or focused on the

perceived rewards for communicating and the perceived consequences of avoiding

communication encounters. 2revious findings have shown that language and

communication avoidance decreases relational satisfaction and perceived influence in

organizations +vtgis, #333/. (n addition, communication avoidance has had a negative

relationship on emploee career development and peer evaluation. This often interferes

with trust and team building, which make these affected individuals less attractive andtrustworth as opposed to those who do not avoid communication :ordham 0 Labbin,

%MM$K -cCroske, %M@/.

The above research focuses on the impact communication avoidance and language has on

group relationships and dnamics. :ew articles deal with the ramifications of

5


6/24

communication competence as opposed to communication avoidance as an apriorism in the

loss of status, culture, communication anxiet and motivation of the workforce. 6ased on

these observations, it can be shown that communication competence could be one of the

main reasons behind wh language activates asmmetries in language, divides teams into

subgroups and affects group dnamics.

). METHOD

(n this stud, we aim to better understand how language competencies and the context in

which it is used influence communication avoidance and cause language asmmetries in

-)Cs. Thus, opting for a mixed methodolog where we can analse implicit group

behavior/ or sensitive subjects power relations/ through interviews, affording us to have a

more flexible approach and bringing forward richer information and data to the stud. &n

the other hand, the surves gather a wider demographic and number of participants that can

answer a large number of set questions that can be compared, contrasted and correlated

with the richer data that we collect from the interviews. +s a result we have information

that is more reliable and will allow us to answer the questions we have been discussing.

+ four1person research team conducted qualitative interviews and focus groups at a

Canadian -)C called C&'()TE*)+T(&)+' a pseudonm/, with headquarters based in

Colombia. C&'()TE*)+T(&)+' has not et adopted English as its lingua franca but

there are imminent plans to move the organization"s headquarters to 2anama in the future,

where its lingua franca will be English. &ur team first visited their headquarters in

Colombia to conduct five individual interviews with Hepartment Hirectors, eight focus

groups which included team members from different departments B >$ informants were

involved, and who served as team leaders, engineers, accountants, coordinators,

professionals, operational staff and assistants. #$% informants took a surve coming from

different departments, namelO :inance, (T, ;uman *esources, ocial *esponsibilit,&perations and 2lanning and Treasur. The informants were #


7/24

minimizing the nuance and complexit between the participants perceived needs vs. actual

needs for English as the lingua franca in relation to language competencies. ;owever, we

are aware of the weaknesses that conducting research in one site ma bring when analzing

group dnamics and language competence in a heterogeneous work context. ?e know that

will not have a complete understanding of the issues that we are dealing with but treated as

an isolated national workforce/ case stud we can learn and build our knowledge to appl

in further studies. :or instance, if we work on global research project with

C&'()TE*)+T(&)+' we can complete an image of the issues that their workforce

experience with adopting English as a lingua franca, problems with group dnamics and

language competencies. These studies can be done in multiple sites, providing opportunities

to compare different results that are obtained from different communities on an

international scale :alzon, #33M/.

).1 Da'a $&**e$'#&n an ana*!%#%

:irst, we conducted four open interviews with the directors of the organization. These short

interviews allowed us to gather the opinions of the leaders that would eventuall lead and

come in contact with mandating English as the -)C lingua franca. Table % +nnex/

presents the breakdown of the data collected on the opinions of the directors of the

organization with relation to mandating English as the -)C lingua franca. econd, we

structured eight focus groups around a common set of open1ended questions aimed at

learning about informants" experiences connected to learning English, how much the use

the language at work and what frustrates or causes major difficulties when using the second

language with colleagues or different stakeholders. ?e asked informants to provide in1

depth explanations and encouraged them to talk about their dail tasks, communication

demands and team dnamics. ample questions included 5Could ou share with us an

frustrations or difficulties that ou ma have experienced learning English or using it at

work to communicateN7 and 5;ow competent do ou feel using English in order to carr

out the dail activities that require the use of this second languageN.7 These questions

allowed us to direct the participants into expressing their feelings, negative or positive in

order to get a feel for the behaviours and emotions connected with mandating a lingua

7


8/24

franca and the effects it had on team member"s relationships and language asmmetries see

Table # +nnex/ for response.

?e conducted interviews primaril in panish, but when it was evident that a Colombian

informant was anxious about being interviewed in English, we offered to interview him or

her in panish. ?ith the exception of two informants, all agreed to be interviewed in

English. Each interview averaged about >3 minutes, and most were conducted in

conference rooms, private offices. (nterviews were tape1recorded, translated, and

transcribed.

:urthermore, we published an online surve on C&'()TE*)+T(&)+'" official intranet,

targeting F33 emploees with approximatel achieving a $


9/24

.% 2ower difference

&ur findings show several references to power difference with a great majorit of

participants manifesting their fear of speaking in English and mentioning fluenc as one of

the ke contributing factors to this communication avoidance. :or example, a team member

from the finance office expresses the difficult he has communicating with colleagues

abroadO

5Ies, ( speak English with m colleagues on a regular basis, but the language 1 an

oral interaction is quite complicated to me in some cases. :or example in Canada,

the wa of speaking is clear but in other countries such as (ndia it is not. ( prefer

writing emails rather than speak with the team in (ndia.7

)ow a participant from the ocial *esponsibilit department states that she prefers to speak

English with a native English speaker or a colleague in Colombia, highlighting

communication avoidance based on language competencO

5:or me it is easier to speak in English with a Colombian person, because ("m

familiarized with the accent. ( feel also comfortable speaking in English with (ndian

people because ( think the don"t have a good level of English either, but ( feel

uncomfortable if ( speak with a native. ("m afraid that she or he won"t understand

me.7

(mmediatel we find that an English native speaker from the Canadian office holds a higher

status than that of an (ndian colleague or fellow Colombian based on the perception that

English is their second language. :inall, looking at the hierarchical relationship between

the leaders and team members we find the following perceptions that make a strong

reference to power differenceO

5(n general all leaders within the compan have a ver good level of English, the

people in their teams don"t. The have a basic or an intermediate level7.

9


10/24

This brings to light a possible divide in teams, subgrouping and can have a negative effect

on emploee career development and peer evaluation. :urthermore, power difference can

be seen even more potent in graph 1, which makes reference to the feelings emploees

have with regards to communicating with a non1panish speaking colleague or stakeholder.

The graph shows that almost 3P of participants feel uncomfortable when communicating

compared to


11/24

given a license to work on this online platform. This contradicts the 2lanning Hirectors

opinion on the need to have wide1spread assimilation of English within the organization.

:or instance, members of the &perations Hepartment state that the organization considers

this department does not need English but members of this team feel that it is essential for

them to carr out meetings with colleagues from Canada or Europe. &n the other hand, the

state that onl two members of the team have the full English competencies, leaving the

rest of the group behind. :urther to this we find the participants perceptions of their English

development ingraph 2 showing a divide in their perceptions towards their development

and training in English.

Graph 2 Do you feel your development in English is adequate enough to carry out

tasks that !"#$%E&$'%#!$'" requires?

n/a NO SI0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

12.64%

47.51%

39.85%

Porcentaje

.> 'imited language learning alternatives

*eferring back to the online language1learning tool, we found that there were weaknesses

with having a single option to language learning. Emploees felt that the needed to

improve their speaking and listening skills. Graph 3shows that near to $3P of participant"s

11


12/24

feel uncomfortable understanding English and Graph 4 shows


13/24

Graph ) How do you feel when you speak in English at work?

13


14/24

A veces me sento !en " otras veces me sento #r$stra%o a& 'a!&ar( so&o )$e%o 'a!&ar %e a&*$nos temas.0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

. *estrictive learning

The general comments given in the eight focus groups were that learning English on itsown is not enough to understand the language and there must be training on cultural aspects

of the language. +s well as understanding the culture, the training should also be adapted to

Colombian cultureK some emploees have been taking an online E: training course and

were unsatisfied with its lack of relevance to Colombian societ.

(n addition, the proposed mentors emploees with a higher level in English/ to help and

support them in their learning process. The should also be given training upon taking this

role as monitor. The feel self1conscious when the attempt to speak in English due to

criticism from fellow colleagues. Colombian culture tends to have a disadvantage in that

the judge and criticize constantl. The felt that a more informal approach to teaching,

such as conversation clubs or lunches can have a better effect in their learning process.

14


15/24

?ith the activities the proposed a flexible model of topics that can be equall dnamic and

motivational for the emploees. The flexibilit of the schedule should also hold equal

importance as the have meetings and bus periods along the ear and specific times of the

month.

The protested against C&'()TE*)+T(&)+', stating that the compan does not respect

the training sessions as it is not a top priorit and takes a back seat when it comes to task

the must complete.

+. DISCUSSION

&ur goal in this stud was to better understand the effect that emploing English as a lingua

franca has on the work1base communit and the barriers that these teams faced with the

increasing use of English as the compan grows globall. ?e linked these effects with the

influence the had on language competence and language dnamics. +s a result we found

that factors such as power difference and language training contributed to language

asmmetries in second language learning. ?e succeeded in describing how language was

an emotionall potent issue for both English1 and non1English1speaking team members at

C&'()TE*)+T(&)+', and how language asmmetries contributed to problems that

persisted in some teams. ?ith the increasing international relationships and sharing of

work, it is important to understand theoretical and empirical perspectives that show the

impact of a lingua franca and bring it forward as an issue that needs to be noticed and

developed in international business and organizations.

&ur findings suggest that language asmmetries are linked to communication avoidance

and language proficiencQcompetence and can often create a divide in groups ;inds,

)eele 0 Cramton, #3%>/. &ur data finds that language asmmetries are caused b lack of

understanding or a perceived absence of an adequate training program in English.

'anguage is more salient than occupational culture ;inds, )eele 0 Cramton, #3%>/, and

it is language together with the national culture and organizational culture that plas a

central role in the cohesion of relationships. (n the focus groups, participants made several

suggestions that involved implementing culture into their English language training

programs, as man of these emploees interact with people from a diverse number of

15


16/24

cultures and countries. :or instance, participants complained about the directness of

+merican emails and communication avoidance that arises when talking to a native English

speaker over the phone based on language proficienc 6ell, %M@$K :rederick 0 van

-echelen, #3%#K =ung 0 -cCroske, #33/.

(n addition, recent literature on language dnamics and power difference concerned with

social identit 'auring, #33@K 4aara, Tienari, 2iekkari, 0 aRntti, #33K an+ntonio, %M@F/ has found that individuals have little

power over their interpersonal environment and communication avoidance 'auring, =., 0

litmDller, +. C, #3%/. This can be linked to our results that show more communication

avoidance when speaking to native speakers as opposed to fellow nationals or colleagues

that are non1native English speakers.

?hile language competence or proficienc level is a consequence of language asmmetr

we can link this problem with the associated training that is linked to educating emploees

in the -)Cs chosen lingua franca. ?ith 5restrictive learning7 causing further problems for

those emploees, teams or groups that perceive that the need the resources to learn the

compan lingua franca but are denied access. +llen #3%>/ suggests that without a

communit in which to practice the language, the learning process will fail. This brings us

closer to understanding that an online English learning program alone is not sufficient as

the create set goals and objectives that are not tailored to the work goals and objects of

emploees at C&'()TE*)+T(&)+'. Thus, creating a communit in which English

lingua franca/ is appropriated b emploees with the help of their superiors and colleagues

with higher language proficienc +llen, #3%>/. +s an effect, this would cause a positive

impact on the teams shared object and reduce communication avoidance and power

difference.

6ased on the research findings we looked at both language competence and the !real"language needs of each team, role and area, paing attention to the level and skills that the

workers need to communicate with their stakeholders or colleagues in English. ?e found

that we could elucidate each of the workers real needs and b placing them under a certain

profile that outlines their specific needs.

16


17/24

S&*u'#&n A

+fter analzing the results b department and position, we found that

C&'()TE*)+T(&)+' requires three specific profiles, we have named 2rofile +, 2rofile

6 and 2rofile C. 6elow ou will find the description of each profileO

P,&-#*e AO English is needed to carr out various tasks that coordinators or group leaders

work on, as support. The need four communicative competencies at an operative level.

P,&-#*e BO English is needed B specialized and descriptive B related to their group or

department. The main competence being reading technical documents and being able to

present and explain information related to their job with foreign colleagues.

P,&-#*e CO +n advanced English level is essential. The need to manage public relations

and negotiation skills in a wide business context.

S$e"e

The scheme is related to the previousl mentioned profiles.

Hivided into three sectionsO

%/ kills related to speaking, listening, reading, writing/K

#/ (nteraction with other culturesK

>/ +ttitude towards learning and using a foreign language.

The first point is related to the Common European :ramework of *eference for 'anguages,

the skills highlighted share the real needs of each profile.

The second point seeks to highlight the importance of the cultural element to help develop

linguistic competencies.

:inall the third point seeks to point out the need for each emploee participating in this

process to assimilate the change and mandating English as a lingua franca at

C&'()TE*)+T(&)+'.

17


18/24

BIBLIOGRAPH/

Charles, -., 0 -arschan12iekkari, *. #33#/. 'anguage Training for Enhanced ;orizontal

Communication 1 + Challenge for -)Cs. 6usiness Communication Juarterl, $


19/24

:eel, +. =., 0 ;arzing, +.1?. #33>/. 'anguage management in multinational compa1nies.

(nternational =ournal of Cross Cultural -anagement, %3O >FB.

'auring, =., 0 elmer, =. #3%3/. -ulticultural organizationsO Common language and group

cohesiveness. (nternational =ournal of Cross Cultural -anagement, %3O #$FB#@.

;arzing, +.1?., 0 :eel, +. =. #33@/. The language barrier and its implications for ;JB subsidiar

relationships. Cross Cultural -anagementO +n (nternational =ournal, %>B

>$%.

Liles, ;. and =ohnson, 2. %M@%/ 5The role of language in ethnic group relations.7 (n (ntergroup

6ehaviour, edited b =. C. Turner and ;. Liles. &xfordO 6lackwell.

2earson, =. C., Child, =. T., HeLreeff, 6. '., emlak, =. '., 0 6urnett, +. #3%%/. The influence of

biological sex, self1esteem, and communication apprehension on unwillingness to communicate.+tlantic =ournal of Communication, %MO #%$B##F.

6ell, C. %M@$/. The multivariate structure of communication avoidance. Communica1tion

-onographs, O >$F


20/24

;.I. =ung, =.C. -cCroske. #33/.5Communication apprehension in a first language and self1

perceived competence as predictors of communication apprehension in a second languageO + stud

of speakers of English as a second language.7 Juarterl,


21/24

encar*a e aMar

Lnanceramente a

&as n$evas

em)resas( &a

vsEn G$e )$ee

ar e &a em)resa

es m$" *rane

*eneran e& crecmen

nc$entra &mtacon

&as G$e estn &a #a&ta

n +ana tra!ajan 5

+o&om!a carece )or

n consec$enca( con

ece&ente manejo e

e &a or*anDacEn " & manejo e &a escr

tra$cen a es)aMo& o

)arte ora&( &a enc$en

a ne*ocacEn " e& &

+Jsar A$*$sto FaD +r$D A)o"o CN= PANA+ION/

P&annn* ana*er

Cerente

encar*ao e

)&aneacEn( &a

vsEn G$e J&

)$ee ar e &a

em)resa es

va&osa.

+OIN=NA=IONA

2300 'acen )arte e

S$ eG$)o necesta e

necesa &atente( &a

)ro#esona& G$e )$e

com)ettvas. & *r$)

entre K1 a +2.

s)era G$e e& moe&o

or*anDacEn. S$ rea

)otencacEn e &as '

escrt$ra " &a &ect$ra

Por otra )arte( cons

G$e )$ea m)actar

&as necesaes es)e

res)oner a &as nece

%a*le 2 oc$s *ro$) com)aratve c'art.'rea $o+

,ersonas

'ctividades reali-adas en

ingl.s

Di/cultades perci*idas por los

miem*ros del grupo

'specto

,laneaci0n 4 =e&econ#erencas So&o 1 e 4 )ersonas omna

)er#ectamente e& oma ?e& je#e

e& rea@.

ste co

)ara rea

+$rsos " ca)actacones

re&aconaas con e& rea

No )oseen s$Lcente voca!$&aro(

&o G$e ca$sa nse*$ra a&

'a!&ar.

Se eve

en &a e)

)artc)a

*ro$).evsEn e tra$ccones e

tetos

No este comoa s$Lcente

)ara &a ar*$mentacEn.ect$ra e tetos e Fno&e

tJcnca re&aconaos con e& rea&esponsa*ilidad

Social

100 ect$ra e tetos s)ara en &os nve&es e

omno e n*&Js. +onseran

G$e e& 70% e& rea tene $n nve&

s$Lcente sn em!ar*o 'a" $nsentmento *enera&Dao e #a&ta

e )roLcenca( es)eca&mente en

&a e)resEn ora&. os com)aMeros

G$e manejan e& n*&Js acceen a

o)ort$naes nteresantes

?eventos( )ro"ectos es)eca&es@.

Intercam

)artr e

)ersonas

o#rece &a

+on*resos No enc$entran #c& e& $so e &a

cenca )or temas e tem)o

" com)at!&a tJcnca con

a&*$nos eG$)os.

Cerente

!&n*Qe.

o)ort$n

eG$)o a

21


22/24

ventos a &cenca tene m$" !ajo

com)onente *ramatca& " es

eLcente )ara e& esarro&&o e &a

e)resEn ora&.

aros co

con#orm

" &a $san

actvas o

&a maMan

em)&ear

'oraro &a

Pro"ectos es)eca&es =emor a ser j$D*ao a#ecta &ae)resEn ora&.

Se )erc!n*&Js co

)ara e&

)ro#eson

Lc$&taes a &a 'ora e

re&aconarse con etranjeros

e!o a #erencas c$&t$ra&es.Se 'an retrao cencas )or

#a&ta e $so.!peraciones In#ormacEn

no

s)on!&e

e$nones e& sector en n*&Js. So&o 2 )ersonas tenen cenca

&os ems no 'an rec!o &a

ca)actacEn.

a cenc

$t&Daa

)m@. s m

en 'orar

In#ormacEn tJcnca e& rea(

j$rs)r$encas e otros )aFses(

&ect$ra e #a&&os j$ca&es.

a com)aMFa no consera G$e

esta rea reG$era e& oma( )ero

e&&os conseran G$e e& n*&Js sF

es m)ortante )orG$e

+O=IN=NA=IONA est

rea&Dano re$nones con toas

&as em)resas e& sector e

'rocar!$ros " 'a" m$c'as

)ersonas an*&o)ar&antes conG$enes e!en nteract$ar.

InteraccEn ora& con )ersonas e

otros )aFses.

as )ersonas no tenen tem)o

)ara est$ar con &as &cencas )or

car*a e tra!ajo.evsEn e contratos. Lc$&taes a &a 'ora e

re&aconarse con etranjeros

e!o a #erencas c$&t$ra&es.=emor " ver*QenDa #rente a &a

)arte conversacona. & )nco a

'a!&ar en n*&Js se e!e en

*enera& a &a esa)ro!acEn e &os

)ares co&om!anos. a c$&t$ra

co&om!ana es m$" com)aratva(

crFtca " j$D*a e manera

)ermanente.a &cenca no se )$ee $sar en

'oraro &a!ora& " )or car*a e

tra!ajo se termna acceeno a

a&tas 'oras e &a noc'e c$ano e&

estao e nmo no es E)tmo

)ara e& )roceso e a)renDaje.inan-as 5 Presentacones So&o 2 )ersonas tenen e& nve&

reG$ero en re&acEn con &as

necesaes e& rea. Se

sta rea

&cencas

cEmoos

22


23/24

entrevstE a esas os )ersonas en

n*&Js " se evencE G$e s !en

cons*$en com$ncar s$s eas

ora&mente( s$ nve& en e)resEn

ora& es A2.

)resenc

+omtJs eLcencas en n*&Js tJcnco "

termno&o*Fa es)ecFLca.


24/24

con c&entes " )roveeores e

BSA " Kras& en n*&Js.

G$e ms retos )resenta. $n c$rso

)resenta

)ara a)r

n*&Js.

ta&&eres sn*&s' ra"s cenca & cam!o G$e se 'Do

en &a )&ata#orma 'a nR$o en e&

esem)eMo e varos. No &es*$stE " ejaron e em)&ear &a

&cenca.

Se eve

en e)re

entrevst

%alento Humano 8 ect$ra es)orca e tetos en

n*&Js.

No este $na nteraccEn

#rec$ente con e& n*&Js )ero a

#$t$ro( )ara esarro&&arse

)ro#esona&mente( ser necesaro

'a!&ar n*&Js.

cenca

'a v$e&to

e& cam!

&a )&ata#o

Se reG$ere so!re too en &as

&a!ores )ro)as e &os *erentes "

es)eca&stas.

Se e)resa G$e &a escrt$ra es &a

'a!&a G$e ms )ro!&emas

ca$sa. Sn em!ar*o &a e)resEn

ora& es $n )ro!&ema evente en

&a entrevsta rea&Daa en n*&Js.

Perce)c

entrenam

'errame

tanto a&

em)resa& nve& e n*&Js en &a e)resEn

ora& e &os entrevstaos es A1

A2.Perce)cEn e #a&ta e

com)romso en e& $so e &as

&cencas &o c$a& 'a con&&evao

esercEn. a&ta e c&ara en &a

#orma en &a G$e se eva&Ha.

24

problems mandating english in multinational companies update 23-11-14.comments (1)

Documents