Power in International Business Communication and Linguistic Competence: Analyzing the Experiences of Nonnative Business People Who Use English as a Business Lingua Franca (BELF)

Concept of Power

Power is “a relative concept which includes both the ability to control others and the ability to accomplish one’s goals” based on a sociological or psychological perspective (Holmes & Stubbe, 2015, p. 3). Power relationships of interlocutors have been of interest to researchers as “the value of utterance” depends on “the relation of power” of interlocutors, and power relationships is “concretely established between the speakers’ linguistic competences” (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 67). These linguistic competences which influence the power relationship of interlocutors refer to both speakers’ capacity for “production” of the language, and pragmatic capacity “for appropriation and appreciation” (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 67).

The notion of “power” in business communication is, therefore, not particularly new; rather power in business communication has been extensively studied alongside a wide variety of themes, including race, class, gender, and corporate hierarchies (Bargiela-Chiappini et al., 2007; Deetz & McLellan, 2009). The exploration of power relations in business discourses has shown how unequal power relationships between business people exist within organizational structures, as well as on how that power is exercised. Handford (2010) has demonstrated that different power relationships influence and can partly determine constraints in “business-meeting discourse” (p. 218), while Holmes and Stubbe (2015) have argued that power is often exercised subtly with politeness in corporate hierarchies. They have also demonstrated that the relationship between superiors and subordinates can generally be characterized as one of unequal powers, but the superior does not necessarily materialize their power when communicating with the subordinate. In other words, they showed that the “relationship with the potential power” and the relationship with the “actual exercise of power” are different (Holmes & Stubbe, 2015, pp. 1-11). As shown by the difference between “potential power relationship[s]” and the actual “exercise of power,” power is dynamic, and one can resist and negotiate a given power relationship (Locher, 2004). Locher (2004) further argued that the context of the communication determines “the degree to which such a resistance and negotiation is possible” (p. 22).

Power in International Business Communication

Researchers in the field of international business communication are increasingly paying attention to an additional source of power in international business: the multilingual competence of individuals. The study of the power of multilingual competence in the international business context was pioneered by Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, and Welch (1999) in their study of multinational corporations in Scandinavia. The study illustrated that English can become both a barrier and facilitator, creating complex problems and impacts for individuals and organizations. The extensive investigation was conducted on a multinational corporation based in Finland that had been using English as its corporate language for 30 years (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999). They found that an individual with relevant linguistic skills may gain influence within their company by controlling special knowledge and developing networks of critical contacts. Such individuals may gain power by accessing sensitive information and playing a gatekeeper role. As such, “language is often used as an informal source of expert power in multinationals” (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999, p. 433). Further research has been conducted on the power of language within multinational organizations focusing on the power relationships between headquarters and their subsidiaries (Harzing & Feely, 2008) and the power dynamics of multinational teams (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2017).

Charles (2007) has pointed out that language is a “power-yielding instrument” by reflecting upon past research in Northern Europe. In addition to the power dynamics within multinational organizations, she further pointed out that language competence creates “language-based power relations” in individuals’ perceptions (p. 273). She paid attention to the perception of the significant “disempowerment” of people who have limited skills in the language being used in a case of a merger between Swedish and Finnish companies. Initially, the company chose Swedish as their corporate language, but employees whose first language was not Swedish felt that they “were suddenly stripped of power” (p. 273). They felt that they were “unable to even use the power and influence that their professional status and role in the company granted them” (p. 273). Such disempowerment is “reflected in the way they perceive themselves as professionals and managers” (p. 274). Individuals “face situations where they feel deprived of their ability to communicate and express themselves adequately” and have “a sense of frustration, and a struggle to maintain dignity.”

This “subjective disempowerment” is also experienced by nonnative English-speaking workers when the corporate language is changed to English (Neeley, 2013, Neeley, Hinds, & Cramton, 2012) in Germany, France, Japan, and the United States. Neeley and her colleagues find that the introduction of an English-only policy led to nonnative speakers of English feeling constrained and anxious, and consequently, feelings of “mistrust, avoidance, and exclusion” (Neeley et al., 2012, p. 238) toward native speakers. In some cases, the study has revealed that the introduction of English as a corporate language has even resulted in nonnative speakers disrupting communications with native speakers deliberately. Meanwhile, their study finds that native speakers of English gain status because their superior language skills empower them in their business communication. In arguing that “English is the common business language of choice in the 21st century, regardless of company origin or headquarter location” (p. 236), Neeley et al. (2012) seem to suggest that native English speakers will gain status in multinational companies around the world.

English as a Business Lingua Franca (BELF) Approach

While the “status loss” of nonnative English speakers has been discussed in the context of use of English, the emerging concept of BELF (Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2013; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005) has paid specific attention to how nonnative English users “get work done” in English (Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010, p. 380) in global business.

In their study, BELF researchers emphasized the drastic changes in the roles and in users of English in an increasingly globalized world, particularly in business settings. From a role perspective, English is increasingly used as a lingua franca to communicate across different linguistic backgrounds, which differs from its traditional role in English-speaking countries. From users’ perspectives, because of this change in roles, the number of nonnative English speakers exceeds that of people who use English as a mother tongue, and English communication between nonnative English speakers has become common in global business (Crystal, 2012; Graddol, 2006). Because of the changes, BELF researchers argue, that nonnative speakers’ attitude toward their English becomes more pragmatic and flexible (Ehrenreich, 2010; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005; Pitzl, 2015; Pullin, 2015; Rogerson-Revell, 2008) as well as less constrained by the norms of native speakers (Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2006). Collaboration and accommodation are also widely observed among BELF users as an effort to coconstruct intelligibility (Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010; Koester, 2010; Pitzl, 2005). BELF researchers have claimed that native speaker proficiency in English is both unrealistic and unnecessary (Ehrenreich, 2010) for nonnative users in BELF communication. They have further argued that “proficiency in BELF” is different from “proficiency in English” in terms of native speakers’ norms (Ehrenreich, 2010; Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta, 2011).

Nonetheless, the “power of native speakers” has been examined by BELF researchers, although their interpretation of the phrase has not been straightforward. Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta (2011) argued that in BELF communication, native speakers of English “may, in fact, lose some of their taken-for-granted power and become more equal players in the new global business arena” (p. 260). This is because “the criterion for effective communication is not the command of grammatical forms and structures but rather the command of the ability to build rapport and trust” in multicultural communication. BELF researchers have sometimes claimed that native speakers can be “problematic” communicators in BELF communication (Charles & Marschan-Piekkari, 2002; Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011; Sweeney & Zhu, 2010).

While researchers have agreed that English is increasingly used as a lingua franca in business worldwide, opinions about the relationship between linguistic competence and the effectiveness of business communication seem to go in two different directions. Whereas Neely and her colleague pay attention to the “status gain” of native speakers in their study (Neeley & Dumas, 2016) and emphasize “a feeling of diminished professional standing” among nonnative English speakers (Neeley et al., 2012, p. 237), BELF researchers, mainly in Europe, have emphasized the “success” of English communication by nonnative English speakers and are skeptical about the effectiveness of the “power of native speakers” in English communication in international business.

These two seemingly different perspectives on the effectiveness of nonnative English speakers in global business communication requires further research. Effectiveness of nonnative English speakers in their global business commutation has profound impacts specifically for nonnative English-speaking individuals as well as management of corporations that have originated from non-English-speaking countries when they make decisions on their international business.

English in Japan

In studies on business communication, Japanese business people have tended to be portrayed as having low proficiency in English and struggling with English commutation (e.g., Tanaka & Sugiyama, 2010; Tenzer, Pudelko, & Harzing, 2014; Yoshihara, 2008). In the past, few researchers have examined if and how Japanese business people are able to communicate successfully in English to achieve their professional roles in international business. This is despite Japan being until recently the second largest economy in the world, and home to some of the largest companies and brands including Sony, Toyota, and Mitsubishi. By focusing on Japan, this study broadens the scope of existing research to illuminate how nonnative English users conducting daily cross-border business perceive the relationship between English competence and power in business communication. This exploration may reveal insights that could facilitate a conceptual discussion of the relationships between English competence and power in business communication from different perspectives.

Based on the literature review, the research question of the study was defined as: How do Japanese business people who use English perceive the impact of their linguistic competence on business communication, and how do they make sense of such impacts?

Narrative Approach

To explore how Japanese business people perceive the relationship between their level of English competence and their degree of power in business communication, this article draws primarily on data from an exploratory qualitative study of 34 Japanese people who use English for business purposes. The narrative method was employed to study how participants perceive their use of English and how they make sense of their experiences. The use of narrative inquiries has been flourishing in a number of disciplines, ranging from the social sciences and humanities to medical studies (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011), including linguistics (e.g., Pavlenko, 2002, 2007) as well as management fields (e.g., Maclean, Harvey, & Chia, 2012; Sparrowe, 2005). This reflects how the narrative method has increasingly been recognized over the past several decades as a valuable and legitimate method of collecting data (Todeva & Cenoz, 2009), and its importance in allowing participants to explain their experience in using English along with their motivation, feelings, and perceived outcome of the communication from their own perspective. Such information is necessary to gain a better understanding of individuals’ perceived power in business communication and how they make sense of such power.

The narrative method also makes it possible to understand the business communication goals set by users of English, and how they perceive their level of achievement of those goals. Given that goal orientation is a significant characteristic of business communication (Bargiela-Chiappini et al., 2007; Koester, 2010), it is important for such communication to be examined and discussed in the context of the goals set by language users. Such information is much less accessible through traditional qualitative approaches, which focus on the “observable outcome” of language use as a final state. In this study, therefore, the narrative method was used to gain an understanding of individuals’ “feeling,” their evaluation of whether they achieved their goals, and how they make sense of their business communication experiences. Interview participants were asked to tell stories about themselves that they sense have been important in their career development. Rather than being interrupted, participants were given the opportunity to speak freely as their thoughts arose, allowing participants to speak about their “critical moments” from their own perspective. Their stories included topics ranging from communication under difficult and competitive circumstances to communication regarding sensitive and confidential matters. Given that participants had full control over what detailed information they disclosed, they could talk about highly confidential or sensitive experiences without revealing information that they felt uncomfortable sharing. This opportunity is especially valuable because gaining access to real discourses for research purposes has always been a difficult hurdle for those studying business communication (Wilkinson & Young, 2004). For the reasons discussed above, I consider the narrative inquiry to be an effective and powerful methodological framework for this research.

Participants

In order to listen to rich experiences that are relevant to the purpose of this study, I recruited Japanese business people who self-identify as nonnative English speakers and who use English frequently in business. They use English for their occupational needs, which are associated with the activities of the organizations to which they belong. All participants were born to Japanese-speaking parents and had completed education in Japan exclusively to at least higher education level. As mentioned previously, in order to examine the portrayal of Japanese people as “lower competency in English,” this study specifically chose participants who grew up in the relatively monolinguist culture of Japan within the Japanese education system. Therefore, this study presents narratives about how participants who live and work in a monolinguistic Japanese setting must adapt to the global business context over the course of their business careers.

In total, 34 professional users of BELF were interviewed. Given that business users with significant experience in using English were recruited for the study, most participants were in their 40s to 50s and had 20 to 40 years of business experience. While no specific gender spread was sought, of the 34 participants, only 7 were female. Rather this arguably reflects the male-dominated nature of the Japanese business environment, especially among older generations. Participants were sourced from a wide variety of sectors, including finance, technology, hospitality, trading, and manufacturing, as well as the nonprofit sector.

Interviews and Analytical Process

Interviews were conducted in Japanese and were 60 to 90 minutes long. Japanese was preferred to English to allow participants to tell their stories without stress or confusion. The qualitative interviews were unstructured, and made reference to the narrative method (Riessman, 2008). As an opening question, I asked participants about their experience of using English when they were students, and then proceeded to ask how they have used English over the course of their careers, with a focus on what experiences they considered important for progressing in the careers within their particular work environments.

The interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed in Japanese. The analysis was conducted using the raw Japanese data that capture detailed nuances in the narratives of participants. The transcribed data were translated into English only after the analysis, when the article was written in English, as translation always has political aspects (Pennycook, 2001) and may not be free from influence of interpretation of dialogues. The analyzing process was primarily based on Riessman’s (2008) thematic analysis, which emphasizes the importance of interpreting participants’ accounts of experiences “as a whole” (p. 57) so that contexts in which stories are situated are preserved in the analytical process. Accordingly, the transcribed texts were divided into “units” of experience as told by participants and I added “tags” which represent key themes that I attached to the experiences. In this article, I primarily focus my discussion on experiences tagged with “challenges” and “success/achievement.” Afterward, I read each “unit” carefully paying attention to themes such as “what they did,” “how or why they did it” and most important, “how they make sense of” the experience. At the end, each “unit” of experience was assigned codes with focus on “theme” (e.g., power, multilingualism, content of talk, etc.), and the “emotions and reflections” (e.g., anxiety, failure, turning point, etc.). After this process was completed for all “units” of experiences, the “units” with the same and similar codes were compared across participants so that I could identify reoccurring patterns and examine variations across participants.

Data and Findings

During the analysis stage, the experiences of participants during the initial stages of using English were separated from those in the latter stages. This separation was performed because participants’ experiences and the way they made sense of those experiences during the initial stage differed significantly from those in the latter stages. Of the 34 participants, 32 said that they had faced significant challenges during the initial stages of using English at work, although all of them eventually overcame those challenges. In other words, “novice” users of English in business tend to face significantly stronger disempowerment than “mature” users of English. The focus of this article is on the latter stage of their use of English, and an analysis discussion specifically focusing on the initial stage has been reported in another article (Takino, 2016). Nonetheless, for background information, I briefly sketch out the findings obtained from the narratives about challenges that individuals often face during the initial communication stage. Most participants had very little experience using English when they started their work because they grew up and were educated in Japan, a relatively monolingual society. In order to begin using English to perform their responsibilities in business settings, many participants needed to start by using English at a very basic level and take themselves out of their comfort zone. By gaining such experience in an “uncomfortable” way, these individuals were able to improve their English through trial and error. They noted that it took 3 months to 2 years before they felt reasonably comfortable conducting their work in English.

Once participants became more mature BELF users and felt more comfortable working in English, they still faced challenges, especially when their responsibilities were changed, the location of their work was altered, or they were promoted to take on more complex tasks. Overall, participants said that when they faced such challenges, they felt their power to communicate was significantly restricted and led to feelings of frustration. Nevertheless, participants also said that they managed to handle and overcome new challenges that arose. In fact, no participant reported feelings of total failure because of their level of English proficiency. As such experiences emerged persistently, they were tagged as “challenges,” and I analyzed further into why and how participants felt they managed to overcome their challenges. In the following section, my analysis focuses on this issue. In order to discuss how they overcame these challenges, however, I first need to discuss how the challenges were connected with the feeling of disempowerment due to limited English competence.

Feeling of Disempowerment Caused by English Competence

Although all participants stated that they could manage working in English once they became accustomed to using it at work, many revealed that they felt that they “could have done better” or experienced feelings of “frustration.” In his interview, Wakaya, a senior manager of a technology firm selling advanced Japanese technologies abroad provided enlightening comments on the challenges he faced during his time working with government projects in Africa, Asia, and Europe.

Excerpt 1—Wakaya ²

[R: for researcher, W: for Wakaya]

The challenges and feelings of frustration reported by Wakaya are multidimensional. The frustration arises not only because of the different levels of English competence between interlocutors but also difference of own competence in his mother tongue, the strongest language he has. Behind this comparison, he is confident that he is as good an engineer and communicator as, if not better than, his competitors who possesses a superior level of English competence. Several of the participants explicitly noted that had they not been “handicapped” by their competence of the English language, they could be better communicators compared with interlocutors with superior levels of English competence. However, their ability was not fully utilized because of their competence in English. Furthermore, Wakaya’s frustrations were reinforced because this “reduction” of communication skills happens “unfairly.” He explained his view of the unequal distribution of the chances of acquiring the language (Bourdieu, 1991), not only compared with native speakers but also among nonnative speakers. Due to this unequal access, he argued that the spread of English as a lingua franca is fundamentally unfair to people with lower access to English. Interestingly, the frustration was not only related to the quality of his communication abilities but also to the speed at which he was able to work in English. This feeling of diminished productivity that results from a drop in both the quality and speed of work was reported regularly among the participants of this study.

Nonetheless, Wakaya is also practical and pragmatic, and by accepting the reality, he continued to explain the strategies he developed to address the challenges he had faced. His attitude showed that losing power in business communication due to one’s level of English competence does not necessarily translate to one losing his will to communicate in English. The following excerpt provides another case that shows how a participant made sense of the relationship between the feeling of disempowerment she experienced and the achievement of her business goal.

Excerpt 2—Ryoko

Ryoko explicitly states that her feeling of disempowerment does not arise because of the practical challenges within business, but rather due to emotional uncomfortableness. Existing BELF research has largely looked at BELF as a practical tool, yet Ryoko’s experiences suggest that research also needs to take into consideration more emotional aspects. These emotionally grounded feeling of disempowerment seems to persist even for motivated and capable Japanese professionals. In many cases, the emotional aspect of disempowerment resulted from users making comparisons with others. Ryoko, for example, took for granted that native speakers would be stronger in English, but felt pressured and emotionally uncomfortable when she found that other nonnative speakers were also much better than her when it came to speaking in English during such meetings and she felt she could not match their level. This arguably demonstrates a shortcoming of the native and nonnative dichotomy, as almost all participants had used English with business people with from varying linguistic backgrounds, many of which cannot be easily classified as native or nonnative. Participants implied the existence of such English users when referring to French business people who are “veterans” of participating in English meetings, North Europeans who are “almost as competent as native speakers,” Indians who speak English “very fast with difficult vocabulary,” and Asians who “have studied in English-speaking countries.”

Participants’ narratives about feeling uncomfortable and incapable are similar to the perceptions of nonnative speakers as reported by other researchers. Charles (2007) referred to this phenomenon as subjective (dis)empowerment, and Neeley (2012) labelled the emotional experience as being “restricted and reduced” (p. 238). Neeley further reported that these emotional experiences negatively affected their interaction with native English speakers. Their description of “mistrust, avoidance, and exclusion” and “disrupt collaboration” (p. 238) seems to infer that the nonnative English speakers in their study often evaluated their communication performance with native English speakers in a rather negative light.

The participants in this study, however, generally made positive comments about their business communication performance even when participants felt “sense of disempowerment.” Comments made included “I have done work in English relatively well,” “I did not experience any major setback because of my English,” and “I did face numerous difficulties in English, but I was able to manage these situations somehow.” Overall, they evaluated their work performance in English positively and their narrative tone inferred a sense of achievement despite the sense of disempowerment they seemed to have experienced. The tone that participants conveyed about their communication performance appears to contrast with the claims made by Neeley.

Value of Information as a Source of Power

Many participants who are in the engineering and scientific fields noted that if their technical information is superior, their interlocutors become more eager to understand their messages. For some participants, it therefore became easier for them to communicate in English even if their English skillset was relatively limited. I refer to this source of power as the “value of information,” with the importance of taking this into consideration highlighted by Adachi.

Excerpt 3—Adachi

The above excerpt suggests that despite an attempt to use simple and clear English, some English users with limited linguistic skills may still produce speaking/writing which is not easy to understand. However, if the value of information, such as the quality of the scientific knowledge being discussed, is appreciated by readers, then people will be willing to read it even if the English is difficult to understand. In short, the value of information motivates interlocutors. The importance of the “value of information” as a source of power was repeatedly mentioned by engineers. These participants are mainly working to transfer high-level technologies developed in Japan to those who want to learn and apply the knowledge into their local sites. The Japanese “teacher” may have limited English skills, yet the superiority of the technical information held by the Japanese motivates “learners” to communicate. This observation is in line with Sunaoshi’s (2005) research in the United States which showed that the technical superiority of “Japanese workers is seen as [a source of] power over the American workers.” Furthermore, the “value of information” is a source of power in a broad range of fields, and not just engineering and science as shown in the following excerpt from Bando.

Excerpt 4—Bando

His observations confirm that the value of the message is far more important than how the content is communicated in English, and the “valuable information” is something that is appreciated by colleagues in the business context. These BELF users can provide such valuable information because they possess critical knowledge about the business at issue. Some BELF researchers have noted that competence in BELF communication increases when the BELF users have professional and expert knowledge (Ehrenreich, 2010; Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010; Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta, 2011), and this study confirms such findings. This claim may also be explained using the concept of power by restating that the power of BELF users in their BELF communication may increase when they hold professional and expert knowledge, because such knowledge represents potential power. Knowledge of valuable information as a source of power is also considered “expert power” in organizational power dynamics when people with different linguistic background work in teams (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2017).

Economic Relationships as a Source of Power

Business communication is always situated within the business context, and hence, economic relationships are often used to explain why communicating in English may be easier or more difficult. One of the most frequently discussed economic relationships that has direct implications for communication is the seller-buyer relationship. Many participants recalled experiences of their communication in English either as a seller or as a buyer, and how such relationships influenced how they used the language. Mika, who was in the buyer’s department, reflected on how she used English in such a setting.

Excerpt 5—Mika

Mika’s experience strongly suggests that the seller-buyer relationship is explicit to interlocutors, and that the achievement of sellers’ communication goals is almost exclusively determined by the buyer. Therefore, sellers have to accommodate buyers, and not vice versa. The impact of the seller-buyer relationship has been discussed by many participants. Daiwa also felt that the seller-buyer power relationship was a source of empowerment and disempowerment, by comparing his experience both in exporting and importing sections during his time in a Shosha, a trading company.

Excerpt 6—Daiwa

After Daiwa reconfirmed the power of buyer, he indicated that Japanese manufactures are often on the selling side, and so they have to adjust their communication according to the expectations of the buyers. He specifically mentioned how American sellers accommodate their English communication to the needs of the Japanese buyers as a case where the buyer has power over the seller. The fact that American business people actively adjust their English to the level of the Japanese buyers impressed Daiwa. He explained that their approach presented a stark contrast to his overall experience that Americans tend to exercise a “domineering” attitude in English communication. In the field of engineering, Wakaya also confirmed that when his company sells technology abroad, they have to prepare thoroughly to demonstrate the superiority of their technology. In the field of business management, researchers have noted the power asymmetry that exists in the buyer-seller relationship upon examining the cases where the language of buyers is often used rather than the language of sellers in the context of multinational business in Europe (Lavric & Bäck, 2009). This phenomenon seems to echo the power relationships that are apparent in the stories told by Japanese participants. ⁴

The analysis of participants’ stories further suggests that broader elements of economic relationships, which I group together as “other economic relationships,” also influence the communication between interlocutors. The factors of “other economic relationships” in this study refer to interlocutors’ relationships that are related to the financial side of the businesses with which they engage. Yamada’s narrative is one such case because he explained the power dynamics that existed with interlocutors from the perspective of the volume of investment his company had made. He had worked in a trading company and held regular meetings with representatives of companies from America, Britain, Norway, Russia, and Japan regarding long-term, expensive, and high-stakes development projects. Yamada perceived that the Americans and Britons dominated meetings by speaking English garrulously and hastily among one another. Consequently, he observed that nonnative speakers, such as the Norwegians, Russians, and Japanese, were placed at a disadvantage because of the way these meetings were operated.

Excerpt 7—Yamada

He proposed changes to rules for such meetings so that minority groups (nonnative English speakers) could participate. He explained that his proposals had some impact, given that his firm had a significant enough share in the project. His voice was heard within the meeting to an extent, because he represented a company that possessed economic power in the context of the project.

Daiwa further explained power of economic relationship in more general terms, by noting that large Japanese manufacturers such as Toyota and Nissan have strong economic power in their business operations all over the world. Based on his experience working in a Shosha, where he met and spoke to many Japanese business people abroad, he said that he is often impressed by managers of large manufacturing firms. Many operate huge projects, despite not having “outstanding competence in English.” He thought that their ability to conduct business in English effectively is, to some extent, a product of the economic power of their companies.

Mika also made a point that economic power can influence the choice of language in business contexts. She explained that the Japanese market was by far the largest in the Asia in the past and Japanese people could conduct business in Japanese, rather than in English or other local languages. However, as the relative volume of the Japanese business has diminished in recent years, Japanese people need to use more BELF to conduct business in Asia.

These examples clearly demonstrate that there is a broad range of economic factors that can cause power to be redistributed.

Goal Sharing as a Source of Power

In addition to the value of information and economic relationships, sharing a goal among interlocutors seems to be a factor which influences their communication. Gotoh, for instance, stated that when he stayed in Sweden for 1 year as a trainee, he did not face many difficulties despite his very limited English skills. Gotoh described his experience in Sweden, where “everybody was kind to [him]” when he joined their team of engineers to learn about, and bring back, the technology that his company had purchased. Gotoh and the engineers in Sweden shared the common goal of successfully transferring technology to Japan, and as such, Gotoh found his colleagues to be cooperative. Gotoh picked out the impact of sharing goals in another of his stories, where he discussed being stationed in Vietnam to run a project jointly with a Briton, an American, and a Singaporean.

Excerpt 8—Gotoh

Gotoh’s assignment seems to be quite challenging if his English skills were relatively limited: He joined a team of three native English speakers to manage a huge plant in Vietnam. However, he was comfortable working on a “native speaker only” team because the group shared a team goal and established collaborative relationships with one another.

However, when there is no shared goal for the business or if team members have conflicting interests, communication may become difficult. For instance, Daiwa told a story of when he faced a conflict of interest during a negotiation.

Excerpt 9—Daiwa

Daiwa found that negotiating where there is a conflict of interest poses a tough challenge, and he indicated that his level of English was not sufficient to perform such a difficult task. Daiwa felt that Indian clients used their higher linguistic skills in English strategically—using difficult words and speaking quickly, knowing that his relatively lower level of English would make it difficult for him to respond effectively. As he felt this situation was risky for him and his company, he hired an American lawyer, rather than continuing the negotiations by himself. The story demonstrates how, in situations when there are serious conflicts of interest, communication can become difficult and uncooperative.

BELF research so far has mainly reported situations where interlocutors cooperate to negotiate meaning, repair breakdowns, and accommodate their languages (e.g., Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2006; Pitzl, 2005; Rogerson-Revell, 2010; Wolfartsberger, 2009). Kankaanranta and Planken (2010) also argued that BELF users usually share the relational orientation and such sense of relationship is perceived as integral for BELF competence. The stories in this study confirm that the harmonious relationships as a result of sharing a goal motivate cooperation in communication, but BELF communication can be tough and uncooperative if interlocutors have conflicting interests. Such situation was already reported about native speakers in BELF communication by German managers in a study by Ehrenreich (2010). The German managers felt that in situations of conflict, some native speakers use more sophisticated English and they find that extremely irritating. Kitami provides further support to the challenges of the conflicting situations, but not limited to native speakers, but BELF communication in general, even among nonnative English speakers.

Excerpt 10—Kitami

He saw himself as a valuable BELF user for his company in his capacity as a “trouble shooter,” because he believes that tough negotiations needs higher English competence, and employees with such high competence in English are not widely available even in trading companies that are regarded as specialists in global business in Japan. Kitami seems to suggest that the majority of Japanese BELF users may suffer from significant disempowerment in conflicting situations, not only toward native speakers but also with nonnative English speakers with higher English competence. In such a case, some experienced BELF users may be aware of the risk of handling the situation by themselves and may develop strategies to acquire support, such as hiring a native speaker, as described by Daiwa (Excerpt 9) in his story.

Relationships of Power Factors in Communication

English skills were repeatedly brought up as a factor that can influence business communication significantly, and the power of language is described in a complex manner. At the same time, I have discussed how several other factors, such as value of information, economic relationships, and goal sharing can also act as sources of power. When these stories are studied closely along with the context in which they are situated, these factors can layer upon one another leading to a multiplier effect. We therefore need to take into account the complex and different ways in which the power of BELF users and the extent to which they feel disempowered. Bando’s story clearly illustrates this point.

Excerpt 11—Bando

The tone in which he spoke about communication with his American counterparts shows that it is a matter of fact for him that economic factors outweigh and override language factors. That the disempowerment resulting from low English competence can be outweighed by other factors was repeatedly told by other participants, such as Daiwa (Excerpt 6) and Adachi (Excerpt 3). From these stories, it is clear that communication in English is not only governed by the power of language but also by other factors.

Dynamics of the Power Relationship and Earning “Respect”

The factors which work as source of power may make influence only when interlocutors aware and perceive the factor. Yoshimi’s story clearly indicates that his economic power had an impact on interlocutors and his perceived difficulty in communicating in English only after his colleagues’ acknowledgment. At first, Yoshimi had a hard time working as a junior staff member with multinational colleagues because his English was insufficient to handle routine communications.

Excerpt 12—Yoshimi

However, there was a significant turning point when he negotiated with a Japanese colleague to bring in an investment of a half million dollar to the organization in which he was working.

Excerpt 13—Yoshimi

Yoshimi was one of only two participants who mentioned how they received explicit criticism for their poor English from colleagues who were also nonnative speakers. In the first part of his story, Yoshimi did not seem to have any factors which could cancel out his “poor English.” He had neither the personal relationships nor the economic power to make up for his “poor English,” and as a new junior staff member, he was probably seen as someone who could contribute little to the business. As a result, he faced criticism from his boss for his level of English. The other participant who was accused of having poor English skills was Naomi, who worked in a Hong Kong-based company as a junior staff member. She also did not have any compensating factors to facilitate her English communication, and she received a face-to-face complaint from a Malaysian colleague about how her poor English was interfering with the rest of the team’s work. These two stories illustrate that if BELF users lack any of the factors which can “cancel out” their relatively weak English abilities, they may be exposed to the unequal power of language, and therefore, experience more difficulty while working in an English-speaking environment.

The second part of Yoshimi’s story is about winning the “respect” of interlocutors, who recognized him as an economic contributor to the organization. Once his economic power was recognized by his colleagues, he felt that his communication in English became much easier because the attitudes of his colleagues had changed. In the previous section, Bando (Excerpt 4) noted that he could work in Chicago because his boss valued his opinion, even though his English was poor. Furthermore, he explicitly explained how the respect of colleagues can be earned by providing valuable information. He employed this strategy intentionally to negotiate in his disempowerment of English competence at the time.

Power and Perceived English Competence

Participants’ stories confirm that many participating Japanese business people feel “restricted” or “disempowered” when they communicate in English because of their limited English skills as nonnative English users while their first language is much stronger than English. Such feelings of disempowerment suggest that, as Charles (2007, p. 273) and Neeley et al. (2012, p. 237), having low language proficiency can limit the power of nonnative speakers in their communications. This study extends on this, by demonstrating that even within a community of nonnative speakers there is percived unequal power valance, given that difference of linguistic competance among nonnative English speaers is significant. The dichotomy of nonnative and native English speakers is therefore limited, and misses out how what matters is the relative difference in linguistic competence. This study, therefore, suggests that power relations of language needs to be discussed (a) in terms of a continuum, rather than the dichotomy that exists between native and nonnative English speakers and (b) as dynamic rather than static for individuals depending on interlocutors and context of communication. The continuum of linguistic competence would range from “entry-level” English speakers who use English as novices as most of the participants used to be, to native speakers who have strong linguistic competence in English. In between, there are a wide variety of BELF users with varied levels of linguistic competence, and some of the nonnative English speakers may be as strong as, or almost as strong as native speakers. This conceptualization of BELF users’ linguistic competence as a continuum, rather than the native and nonnative dichotomy, would be also more suitable to capture one of main characteristics of BELF communication, that participants of BELF communication are English users with a wide variety of linguistic competences (Charles, 2007; Cogo, 2012; Jenkins, 2015; Jenkins et al., 2011).

The dynamic nature of power of linguistic competence has been demonstrated by participants who stated that their sense of “disempowerment” changes over their trajectory of career. It took participants a period of time, ranging from several months to 2 years for each individual, to learn to manage using English comfortably in business contexts. This suggests that linguistic competence of nonnative English users may change overtime and can shift, and as such, the extent to which BELF users feel disempowered can change over time. However, the study also shows that the feeling of disempowerment does not necessarily diminish or disappear even though they gain experience in using English and/or they have learned English skills required for their tasks. One of the reasons, told by some participants, is because individuals with greater linguistic abilities are more likely to be given tasks that are more difficult to handle at a linguistic level. Six of the participants stated clearly that they felt that the demand on their linguistic capacity increased as they were promoted into managerial positions in international business, given that they were responsible for more complex tasks. Other participants stated that they faced new challenges in terms of the use of English when they changed locations, the type of business, or worked with counterparts to their business. In this way, the narratives described in their excerpts show that feelings of disempowerment do not necessary disappear even after they accumulate their experience of using English and become more comfortable to make their job done in English.

How Power Is Negotiated

This study shows another dynamic of the sense of disempowerment that arises due to linguistic competence. The feeling of disempowerment can change depending on the context in which the communication takes place. Even where individuals have limited English competence, they may be able to overcome this due to other favorable power-yielding factors. For instance, when an individual with a lower level of English competence is a buyer, the native-speaking seller would accommodate his English so it was easy for buyer to understand (Excerpt 6), thus giving the buyer more power. Other sources of power, or power-yielding relationships, that participating Japanese business people have mentioned include, the “value-of-information” (Excerpts 3 and 4) and “goal sharing” (Excerpt 8). The participants’ stories also showcased the complex nature of the “power of language” and how it can intersect and combine with other sources of power (Excerpts 7, 11, and 12). Hence, the power of English competence is not the only determining factor of the outcome of English communication. This study also demonstrates that some Japanese business people understand the complex nature of power relations arising from English competence and other sources, and are therefore able to intentionally use, and at times, manipulate other sources of power to successfully negotiate these power relations in their business communications (Excerpts 4, 7, and 13).

These stories confirms that the power of language is not static but negotiable (Handford, 2010; Holmes & Stubbe, 2015) and experienced BELF users may know how to leverage other factors to negotiate the power relations successfully.

Answering the Research Question

The question I raised at the beginning of this article was, how do Japanese business people who use English perceive the impact of their linguistic competence on business communication, and how do they make sense of such influence? The analysis shows that many of the Japanese users of English in the study have noticed that a sense of disempowerment has affected their business communication in English as their linguistic competence in English is limited compared with both their competence in Japanese, and the higher level of competence in English of the people they are working with.

On the other hand, many participants discussed their communication performance in positive terms despite this sense of disempowerment, and stated that they could achieve their communication goals to a certain degree. This is because linguistic competence is only one of the factors that influence power in business communication, and other factors, including “value of information,” “economic relationships,” and “sharing a goal” also have impacts on business communication. These different factors which arise from their business contexts are not mutually exclusive; rather, they interact with one another and work together in a complex manner depending on the situation and context. In other words, the power of linguistic competence is embedded in the complex power dynamics inherent in business communication in their unique contexts. On many occasions, the participants felt that the reduction in power caused by limits in linguistic competence could be “cancelled out” or “reduced” to some extent by the influence of other factors, and as such, they could restore their power in their communications. Some participants explicitly aware that limitied lnguistic skills could disempower them, and accordingly as potentially risky for their buseinss. Therefore, if they feel they are exposed to such disempowerment in the particular context where it is difficult to revalabe other power-yieldg factors, they may take precoucious actions, such as hiring a lawer who use English as a first langauge to support them.

Research Limitations

While using the narrative method enabled the researcher to uncover findings about nonnative English speakers’ perceptions, the methodology also created limitations which should be noted. This research was designed to explore the perceptions of nonnative English speakers, or BELF users with a particular profile, and thus, the findings cannot be generalized. Participants in this study clearly share characteristics that could be said to define an elite minority among BELF users in Japan in terms of their educational background and company profile. They also fall into a minor group of business people who can use English comfortably within the population of Japanese business people, of which the majority seldom use English (Terasawa, 2011). Therefore, the analysis of this study does not indicate that any BELF user can successfully negotiate their disempowerment due to linguistic competence. Rather the study suggests that successful business people are more likely to know how to negotiate power relations based on their experience of using English. Further research on different linguistic and business backgrounds is required, particularly on those with little experience in using English at work, to understand how businesspeople negotiate their “restricted” power relationships arising from low linguistic competence.

It is also necessary to note the limitations of studying only the perceptions and “internal sense-making” of participants, without firsthand knowledge about participants’ everyday English language practices. It was my original intention to focus on the emic view of participants because I felt that there was a lack of information on emic views of English users in mainstream research. Therefore, the lack of access to the real practices of participants’ English use does not necessarily represent a shortcoming, but rather a unique element which can supplement past research, and can be explored in future research.

Theoretical Contributions

Despite its limitations, this study contributes to the theoretical discussion of language and power in the context of communication in international business. This research has provided an in-depth discussion on the concept of power and “power relations with interlocutors,” thus offering an effective way of understanding and conceptualizing the complex and dynamic influence of linguistic competence on business communication. The stories of the participants show that the influence of linguistic competence on power in communications does not occur in vacuum, but must be considered alongside other factors that can influence the distribution of power. These factors may be referred to as “power-yielding relationships” in the sense that they act as potential sources of power. This study has found a number of these power-yielding relationships including the value of information, economic relationships, and goal sharing.

The finding of this research also suggests a need to widen the scope of BELF research in coming years. In the past decade, BELF research has mainly focused on the “success” of BELF communication and has contributed to identify factors which make BELF communication successful. As a result, BELF users have been illustrated as largely successful and unproblematic, regardless of their linguistic competence, as far as they can establish “understanding” in their communication. This study suggests that even when BELF users think that their communication goals have been practically achieved, or the job is done sufficiently in English, the feeling of disempowerment may be persist and this may potentially have negative impact on their communication. Furthermore, as suggested by Kitami (Excerpt 10), while experienced BELF users may be able to negotiate their power dynamics effectively, less experienced BELF users may suffer from more disempowerment, particularly in conflicting situations, where higher linguistic competence may be more advantageous. Therefore, it may be time for BELF researchers to investigate both the successes and challenges of BELF users. Furthermore, BELF researchers may need to investigate beyond “understanding” or establishing eligibility as this study clearly shows that BELF users pursue more than establishing eligibility in order to achieve their business goals effectively in their communications in English. In sum, BELF research need to respond to the complexity and dynamism of challenges faced by BELF users to perform their global business in English.

Finally, it was also suggested that the power of English competence should not be framed according to a dichotomy between native and nonnative English speakers, but rather based on a continuum to reflect the many different levels of English competence. This would suggest a need to examine BELF users beyond the dichotomy of native and nonnative speakers, and to focus more on the different characteristics of BELF users, including the different levels of English competence among them.

Pedagogical Implications

While the article has thus focused on implications for academia, the findings of this study also have significant pedagogical implications. The most important implication is that it may be more realistic for educators to accept that nonnative English speakers are likely to feel subjective disempowerment when they communicate in English, even if they gain experience using English for many years. This study confirms that it is not easy to achieve the level of linguistic competence where one would no longer feel the negative influence of using nonnative language in the business communication setting. Therefore, it would be more practical not only to teach nonnative English speakers to study English but also to help the students develop strategies that allows them to use other power-yielding factors effectively to restore the power so that they can communicate more effectively in English and achieve their end goals or objectives, especially where such goals are related to business.