Extract from GCAE internal report – cultural and organisational factors. Reasons why Non-Native English Speakers do not Play a More Active Part in the IAA

There are a number of reasons why NNE do not play a more active part in the IAA, to mention a few:

Cultural

There are differences in working styles and many members must be given enough time to consider the issues in question, perhaps to discuss them with colleagues and then to formulate their reply in an actual meeting. Sometimes you are even used to listening to the more senior ones and accept their proposals etc.

Organizational

In a number of countries the future actuary is educated more or less exclusively at a university, and/or actuarial organizations are more loosely knit organizations compared to the Anglo-Saxon way.

A fair number of the IAA member associations are comparatively small and many of them are NNEs. On top of the language problem, the small associations have the problem of resources.

The limited resources explains why the small associations cannot participate so extensively in the IAA work as they might have wanted to, but must concentrate only on issues or committees etc., that are of higher importance to them. Sometimes a better understanding from the “big brothers” towards the small ones would also be helpful.

Some of these concerns correspond to issues raised in research into similar EIB contexts and it is hoped that the second stage of this research project will enable the further investigation of such cultural issues.

With regard to ‘organisational’ issues, reference was made to differences in the professional background of actuaries educated in the UK and elsewhere, with the comment that ‘In a number of countries the future actuary is educated more or less exclusively at a university, and/or actuarial organizations are more loosely knit organizations compared to the Anglo-Saxon way’.

A second issue related to the difference between large and small member associations and the relative lack of resources and therefore limited participation of members from smaller organisations, many of whom are non-native speakers of English.

This question of the relative isolation of smaller associations or subsidiaries, particularly if predominantly populated by non-native speakers of the organisational lingua franca has been documented elsewhere. For instance, Charles and Marschan-Piekkari’s (2002) study of horizontal communication in the Finnish-based multinational Kone elevators found that communication between the Finnish headquarters and Spanish subsidiaries was restricted because of limited language skills.

The significance of the language barrier is highlighted particularly with regard to oral communication. Also, while the value of the diversity of GCAE members is recognised, the difficulty of having a wide range of linguistic competence is also acknowledged.

Extract from GCAE internal report – ‘Language barrier’ Reasons why Non-Native English Speakers do not Play a More Active Part in the IAA

Language Barrier

This is an evident problem. The knowledge of the English language varies quite a lot from fluent to barely understandable.

To change some of these reasons/causes is, of course, if not impossible, but a very long term project and frankly we think that this diversity is important for the development of the IAA as an international organisation.

The language problem is an important one to solve because, if we cannot communicate, then how can we expect to work together?

At the same time, we would all like to improve the situation right now as much as is practically possible.

The questionnaire

The GCAE internal report provided a useful starting point for a more detailed data gathering exercise, based on a written questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to gather quantitative data about participants’ use of EIB (e.g., frequency of use, language skills needed, perceived proficiency level) and about participants’ first language, number of other languages spoken, etc.

Qualitative data were also gathered, through open-ended questions, regarding participants’ views about the use of English in GCAE business meetings and more generally about any perceived communication issues in such meetings.

The questionnaires, which were written in English, were distributed and returned during the two-day Annual GCAE Group Meeting held in Manchester, England, in October 2004.

Findings

Languages spoken:Of the 43 out of 47 participants who returned questionnaires, 34 were Non-Native English Speakers (NNES) and 9 were Native English Speakers (NES). The NESs came from different parts of the UK, including England, Scotland, the Channel Islands, and from Ireland, while the NNESs represented a range of 20 different nationalities. The largest contingent of NNESs was Spanish (5 participants), followed by German (3 participants) and Dutch (3 participants) and then several pairs or single participants from the remaining countries.

This widely multinational group included speakers of 17 different first languages, with the biggest group being the British and Irish (9 participants whose first language is English), followed by the Dutch (5), Spanish (4, plus 2 whose first language is Catalan), German (4), Italian (3), Czech (2), French (2), Greek (2), Portuguese (2), Swedish (2), Danish (1), Finnish (1) Hungarian (1), Lithuanian (1), Norwegian (1) and Urdu (1).

All participants shared a common working language of English and the vast majority had some (and varying degrees of) competence in at least one other foreign language. The most commonly spoken foreign language was French (23 participants), followed by German (15), Spanish (7), Russian (4), Italian (2), Catalan (1), Icelandic (1), Portuguese (1) and Swedish (1). The prevalence of French and German as commonly used foreign languages reflects the findings of other surveys of language use in Europe, although typically German is ranked in second position, after English, and French in third (Graddol, 2000; Labrie and Quell, 1994).