Part II
In order to introduce English and to train up their personnel, most companies adopt a similar approach.
Conventional English
classes are offered.
Conventional instruction is often not very effective, since:
•
they often have no direct relevance to on-the-jobs issues
•
many people simply do not function well in a “class room” environment
•
Instruction takes place too infrequently: typically 1.5 to 4.5 hours a
week
External providers are
sought and chosen very often on the basis of cost and convenience.
The low-cost provider is often not the best provider.
•
Low cost providers hire low cost trainers.
•
Low cost providers either provide only standard instruction.
•
Tailoring English training to a employee‘s or organization‘s needs takes
time and money.
•
Effective trainers need to have at least some sense for the business
issues affecting their students. Such trainers are not always easily found.
HR / Personnel is made
responsible for foreign language training
HR is often
lacks the skills or knowledge for effectively guiding a foreign language
training program
- Foreign
language training is unlike any other kind of learning
HR has many
other priorities.
HR – or
whatever other organization is responsible
– fails to
provide an effective plan for developing those resources who most need to
improve their language skills.
– does not
effectively or consistently measure the progress or efficacy of language
training.
Language instruction
is a low schedule priority
•
It
is somehow something “extra” that should in no way take the employee away from
his job for „too long“.
If foreign language skill is not a truly
corporate priority, why introduce English at all?
•
The low priority of language training is communicated to employees.
•
Employees do not treat the training as part of their job.
•
Language training is something “extra” that the company provides out of
the good of its heart
Prerequisites for making English a practical
and effective means of corporate communication
A corporation must
decide whether it is serious about what it states.
Is making
English the effective corporate language really a corporate priority?
•
There are obvious reasons for answering “yes”.
Then a
corporation should “put its money where its mouth is”.
•
Learning, improving, using English effectively must be treated as an
important part of an employee‘s job.
A corporation must, in
effect, first “talk the talk”, e.g.
All
newsletters and other country-wide / corporate wide communication should be
composed in English.
•
A vocabulary / phrase list providing native language translation can
transform such communications into an English learning tool.
All
internal assessment documents, tools, office software versions should be in
English.
•
Tutorials can be offered explaining, e.g., that “Save as…” means (e.g.
in German) “Speichern unter…”
Other
measures can be taken in the short term.
The
important thing is communicating that:
•
the company is serious about this, and
•
that English is an important part of the job.
After “talking the
talk”, a corporation must then “walk the walk”.
Provide
effective, practical English training that is geared to the needs of each team,
department and organization.
•
Training should be based directly on current issue, initiatives,
presentations relevant to the organization‘s daily work (more about this
later).
•
Training should be effectively integrated into an organization‘s work
day.
Make the
demonstration of English skills part of an employee‘s performance review
process.
•
Tie
performance bonuses and promotions to an employee‘s English communication
abilities.
•
Provide
intensive training (40-50 / week) to employees who need be effective
abroad within a short time (e.g., engineers).
•
This costs money, yes... but if someone is needed abroad, the cost
should be worth it.
I will
say more about intensive training in Part III
