This print version free essay Impact Of Language On Corporate Culture.

Category: Business

Autor: reviewessays 03 March 2011

Words: 5072 | Pages: 21

Corporations, like any organization, define and are defined by a shared culture. This culture is
created through the use of language first in the creation and implementation of a shared vision
articulated in a company mission statement. This vocabulary steers the organization toward what
will become their shared culture. This culture is then reinforced through all manners of language,
evidenced in corporate communications such as press releases and company policy, the
semantics of job titles and descriptions, and in everyday jargon that is used around the legendary
water cooler, in stockholder meetings, and in every employee office, desk, and cubicle
throughout the organization. In order to prove this point we will first define what corporate
culture is, we will then explain how language creates and reflects culture and then use examples
of how that language is used specifically in an organization to create and reveal culture.

People learn culture. Many qualities of human life are transmitted genetically -- an infant's desire
for food, for example, is triggered by physiological characteristics determined within the human
genetic code. An adult's specific desire for milk and cereal in the morning, on the other hand,
cannot be explained genetically; rather, it is a learned (cultural) response to morning hunger.
Culture, as a body of learned behaviors common to a given human society, acts rather like a
template, shaping behavior and consciousness within a human society from generation to
generation. Culture resides in all learned behavior and in some shaping template or
consciousness prior to behavior. In other words, a "cultural template" can be in place prior to the
birth of an individual person.

This primary concept of a shaping template and body of learned behaviors might be further
broken down into the following categories, each of which is an important element of cultural
systems. These include systems of meaning, of which language is primary; ways of organizing
society, from kinship groups to states and multi-national corporations; and the distinctive
techniques of a group and their characteristic products.

Culture can be explained in many ways. Anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn and writer Aimй
Cesair offer two interpretations. Kluckhohn in Mirror for Man has defined culture as:

1. The total way of life of a people

2. The social legacy the individual acquires from his group

3. A way of thinking, feeling, and believing

4. An abstraction from behavior

5. A theory on the part of the anthropologist about the way in which a group of people in fact
behave

6. A storehouse of pooled learning

7. A set of standardized orientations to recurrent problems

8. Learned behavior

9. A mechanism for the normative regulation of behavior

10. A set of techniques for adjusting both to the external environment and to other men

11. A precipitate of history

12. A behavioral map, sieve, or matrix (Geertz 1973).

Cesair, speaking to the World Congress of Black Writers and Artists in Paris, summarized this
concept stating, “Culture is everything. Culture is the way we dress, the way we carry our
heads, the way we walk, the way we tie our ties -- it is not only the fact of writing books or
building houses.” In these illustrations it is evident that culture encompasses all aspects of a
given society, whether that of a largest of countries or the smallest of corporations.

There are two dimensions to the impact of culture on corporate performance. In the first instance,
since firms are a part of the larger socio-cultural system and they draw their inputs from it, they
cannot be isolated from the cultural milieu. The various values of the society which all the
stakeholders share, therefore, affect organizational performance for good or bad. When such
values are retrogressive, anti-entrepreneurial and, ethically defective, the organization suffers.
On the other hand, when the values are progressive, ethically vibrant, promote and reward
handwork and encourage meritocracy as against ‘quatacracy’ they rub off positively on the
organization (Muo 2002).

The second dimension deals with the culture of the organization itself. Like human societies,
organizations have cultures which encapsulate their ways of viewing and handling task and
relationship-oriented issues that arise in the work environment, how they view and manage
stakeholder relations and how they relate to the external environment. The culture influences and
is, in turn, influenced internally by the vision, mission, and objectives and externally by the logo,
slogan color, and location. “It also has several dimensions including the degree of sociability,
power distribution, the level of formalism, rewards and sanctions, opportunities for growth,
tolerance for risk, change and conflict, level of initiative, flexibility and empowerment,
emotional bond, language, staff quality and composition (intellectual, physical, gender and
background) corporate language (yes; organizations have languages), and ethics” (Muo 2002).

Organizational culture varies and is a function of history, ownership and industry, external
environment and management orientation. It influences the way an organization is run, the type
of organizational climate, and even the level of staff commitment and morale. But even then for
a corporate culture to be adjudged as ‘strong’ it has to have certain attributes. These
attributes include a widely shared philosophy, belief in ritual and ceremony, such as ‘dressing
down’ on Fridays, a well understood sense of informal rules and expectations, a shared
commitment and ownership of corporate mission, and a spirit of citizenship amongst the staff.

An organization's culture is the set of norms that create powerful precedents for acceptable
behavior within the firm. Culture is a powerful force and can provide an engine to achieve
market success or an anchor pulling the firm toward failure. An organization's culture has a
significant impact on one’s performance. Defining the informal rules of the road, the culture
determines the degree of creativity and risk that are acceptable, the patterns of communication,
and even the types of relationships people have with each other. Organizational success depends
on the creation of an identity that pulls together the multiple aspects of an organization. The
effective management of identity changes would require both strong ties that connect people to
their organization and loose ties that prevent them from getting too attached to the status quo.

Language is an important tool for change attempting to manage the highly identified workforce.
The process of identification is conducted and expressed primarily with language, which plays a
critical role in not only reflecting the product of identification but also in shaping its process.
Understanding the dual role of language is important for an organization’s leaders in
purposefully identifying and changing the organization’s identity (Cheney 1977:11).

Language may be defined as a collection of words used to communicate a message. More

precisely, “Language can be thought of as a collection of signs, symbols, codes and rules
which are used to construct and convey messages. These elements form the medium through
which we communicate our ideas, desires and feelings” (Infante 1993:220). Simply, members
of a culture use language so that they may coexist and interact, but the implications of that
language are much more complex than just a basic system of communication. The same culture
that speaks a language also created it. Language, in turn, serves as both a reflection of the history
of a society and as means to which the members of that society perceive and relate to their
environment (Schermerhorn 2003:44).

Language develops as a result of what is important in one’s cultural environment. For

example, the Eskimo language has a number of different words for snow, while Arabic
languages have many varied words to describe camels. In each of these cultures, the relative
importance of snow or camels is reflected by the structure of their language. This concept is
exemplified by the Theory of Linguistic Relativity, also known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,
which states that language records the history and culture of a society. Therefore,
“interpreting language within its social-cultural context can help understand not only the
social organization of a society but also the beliefs and practices of its members” (Shu 2001:
24).

Benjamin Whorf displayed how language reflects culture when he compared American English
and the Native American Hopi language. Each culture perceives time in different ways.
Americans view time in a linear fashion while the Hopi view time in a more cyclical fashion. For
the Hopi time varies with every individual person and cannot be given a number greater than
one, for example, instead of saying, “I stayed for five days” the Hopi say, “I left on the
fifth day.” The Hopi culture sees time in a psychological sense whereas Americans view time
in a qualitative manner (Whorf 1956).

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis also suggests that there is indeed a link between language and
behavior. If language affects perception and perception affects behavior, then language, in turn,
is a strong determinant of behavior (Infante 1993:224). In a study conducted by Brown and
Lenneberg in 1954 they proved that language can affect the way the members of a culture
perceive reality by examining the language of color. They found that cultures that use
distinguishing words for different hues of a color perceive differences in colors. For example,
people from a culture that have many different words for the different shades of blue such as
sunflower, azure, royal or sky would be more likely to perceive the differences in shades of blue
than people from a culture who had just one word for blue. Brown and Lenneberg found that
people with the limited vocabulary could recognize differences in the shades of blue once they
were pointed out but they were quite unlikely to perceive these variations because their language
did not stimulate them to differentiate between the different hues of a color (Infante 1993:223).

Language, while possessing the power to affect one’s perception of their environment can
also shape how the members of a culture relate to that environment. American English proffers
only generic terms for brother or sister, aunt or uncle. In Mandarin Chinese, no such generic
terms exist; instead there are much more precise words that specify exact relationships, such as
‘first-born older sister’ or ‘eldest uncle on my mother’s side’. These specific
words reflect the emphasis in the Chinese culture of family relationships and perpetuate the
culture of familial importance (Infante 1993:428).

Although language reflects culture, continued usage of language can also affect culture. The
usage of language may start out as a reflection of a deferential attitude, leading to the
perpetuation of that sentiment and eventually affect the overall mood and culture of the
environment, as it does in the Chinese culture. The same can be said in the instance of an
organization. Marlene Fiol explains “language plays a critical role in both articulating
identifications [to an organization] and in strengthening or weakening them” (2002:663). It is
important to realize that language is power, with that power we tell others about our culture, but
we also shape ourselves with the words we use in our daily lives.

Language plays a critical role within organizations by providing them an outlet through which
they define and reflect their unique corporate cultures. Whether it is a firm’s mission
statement, job titles, advertisements, or internal lingo and jargon, the language an organization
elects to utilize has great impact on both its employees and customers. Externally, a
corporation’s language can be used to identify and infer its societal goals and core values.
Internally, language helps to motivate employees and provide them with a sense of belonging
and a feeling of serving a greater purpose. Thus, an organization’s success is directly linked
not only to its corporate culture as a whole, but equally to the language element within that
culture.

While various aspects of an organization’s language bring with them specific benefits and
consequences, none surpass the importance and weight of the ‘mission statement’,
sometimes referred to as the value statement. “Mission statements”, in textbook terms,
“are written statements of organizational purpose” (Schermerhorn 2003:214). However,
this definition misses something. It ignores a very significant aspect the message wishes to
portray. More accurately, mission statements define the organization’s purpose “in terms
that embrace the common good” (Mohanbir 2002:103). This concept can be clearly seen in the
mission statement of Lens Crafters, the national eyewear firm, who echoes, “Helping people
see better one hour at a time” (LensCrafters.com 2003).

Organizations do not stand alone. Rather, they interact in an environment with rules, principles,
needs, and desires. Although profit is an important dimension for measuring success, companies
must measure performance beyond dollars and cents. Strength and nature of relationships, the
ability to learn and innovate, internal values, and community contributions, or, in other words, an
organization’s ‘culture’, have become an important means for deriving true corporate
achievement (Mohanbir 2002:104). “As a result, those companies who are able to effectively
utilize their mission statement to ‘inject the positive character of their societal contribution
into a favorable image’” (Schermerhorn 2003:213) hold a great advantage over firms who
neglect this sense of purpose. Lucent Technologies clearly reflects an understanding of this
demand in its mission statement, “At Lucent, we’re helping transform the way the world
communicates, constantly creating new possibilities for connecting people with information,
entertainment, and each other” (Lucent.com 2003).

At the heart of corporate culture lie values and beliefs. It is the role of the mission statement to
reveal these values, not only to the public, but more importantly to the organization’s
members. Among the most famous of mission statements exemplifying this notion is that made
by Hewlett Packard’s founders, who claim, “HP exists to invent the useful and
significant.” Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard believe they provide a useful service because
their products free up customer time. More importantly, they wish not only to make a profit, but
a difference in the lives of their customers (Mohanbir 2002:105). However, these values must be
more than just rhetoric derived from the mission statement. Management and directors must truly
practice the values and beliefs they expound. According to Association Management’s Carl
Levesque, “Your people watch you; and every action, everything you do, is the embodiment
of what you say you believe and what you do believe” (2003:56). Thus, only when language
and behavior are consistent can an organization truly create a vision that empowers and
motivates employees.

Nobody gets excited about bigness. You can belong to a very big organization, but the bigness is
not what inspires us. But when we can mobilize our people around a powerful mission statement
so that the newest secretary or the man on the loading dock-all of us matter-understands that
mission and why we do what we do, it brings people together; it mobilizes them. This is when
you see a highly motivated workforce or staff with great energy moving the organization forward
(Levesque 2003:56).

Unfortunately, while many companies invest a great deal of time and resources developing
mission statements, employees do not endorse them as they do not reflect their actual roles
(Anonymous 2002:6). These mission statements can be perceived as vague and employees, in
turn, fail to connect these visions with their responsibilities. People, by nature, need to have
purpose and meaning for doing their work. Only then are they able to fulfill what Abraham
Maslow considers higher order needs within his hierarchy of needs theory. Thus, “a business
must fulfill the needs of the human spirit. These include survival, safety, play, celebration, love,
belongingness, self-esteem, and self-actualization” (Mohanbir 2002:106). When these needs
are met, a true corporate culture can be created, and it is the mission statement that is the driving
force behind this evolution.

We must remember that a corporate culture cannot be accurately conveyed in a mission

statement. Rather, it must be experienced for itself (Wheatcroft 2002:33). Although
demonstrating an ability to serve as a powerful tool in the attainment of an organization’s
overall objective, they cannot provide values themselves. It is actions that will prove to expose
one’s true values and beliefs. Instead, a mission statement serves as the expressed path an
organization hopes to follow in its pursuit of growth.

At the forefront of corporate action is the language used by its members. Language is the main
tool in shaping a corporate culture; corporate communications are instrumental in crafting the
corporate vision to the outside world. Corporate communications focus on advertising and public
relations. The goal is essentially to inform, promote and ultimately share the company values
with the general public and customers. A company produces publicity materials through a wide
range of media, press releases, events, sponsorships, and their web sites in order to achieve that
goal. This publicity as well as the sold product, in time, will give the public an opinion about the
company brand name, therefore, a perception of the corporate culture.

Each action, each word stated by the organization or its members contributes to the overall image
projected by the corporation. It is only within the last 20 years that the companies came to realize
the importance of controlling and directing the perception of the customers toward a definite
vision and decided to take their destiny into their own hands. For some European firms, there are
two main goals of corporate communication. First, a company must attract customers, in
particular the growing share of environmentally or ethically conscious consumers. Secondly,
corporate communications are in place to ease the pain of the shareholders who are constantly
suspecting the company of wasting money on unnecessary expenditures (Snafu.com). In the
United States corporations have added another goal: the human resource aspect. This internal
element attempts to attract, retain, motivate, and “keep happy” company employees. The
importance of this final goal can be witnessed in a Jeffrey Taylor, founder of Monster.com, press
release, "We have visitors all the time. And there's been more than one case when someone who
had just come in to visit said, 'Wow! I love this place. How can I get a job here?’”
(Fastcompany.com). It is easy to differentiate between the American and European approaches
when examining the unemployment ratios. In Europe the jobless rate is above 10% whereas in
the United States the average is below 6%. Clearly, retaining employees is not as important for
European firms as it is for American companies.

Corporate Communications and Public Relations departments, according to the National

Research Foundation or NRF,

must give voice and visibility to the wide range of programs and other activities of the
organization. Grant holders, bursars and other stakeholders must be kept informed of new
opportunities and developments, while new audiences and funding partners must be attracted to
join the NRF in investing in knowledge and innovation. This is done through a variety of
publications, print and electronic releases and special communication projects aimed at reaching
new audiences. Media liaison includes hosting press conferences, arranging targeted interviews
and developing relationships with key journalists in order to increase media and public
awareness of the NRF” (National Research Foundation.com).

In summary, there are various goals of corporate communication, which include the promotion
of a strong corporate culture and a coherent corporate identity through a shared understanding of
communication tools and technologies. Corporations internally intend to portray a reasonable
corporate philosophy and instill a genuine sense of corporate citizenship while implementing
quick, responsible ways of communicating in a crisis. Externally, a corporation must foster an
appropriate and professional relationship with the press and create sophisticated approaches to
global communications. In other words, how an organization communicates with its employees,
its extended audiences, the press, and its customers brings its values to life (Corporate
Communication Institute @ FDU.com).

The message that language attempts to communicate in an organization is conveyed through

specific words that define the role of each individual. The language used to express one’s job
title has the ability to define the culture of an organization. In today’s society one’s title
in an organization could be a traditional title such as manager, president, or clerk. Recently,
however, some firms are attempting to diversify the language of the job titles. Some job titles
reflect the specific role of an individual in the company; other organizations are implementing
new titles in order to instill creativity in the workplace. This new wave of different, sometimes
nontraditional job titles can help to portray the culture of a business.

In North Smithfield, Rhode Island, the superintendent of the school system altered the
descriptions and job titles of top administrative personnel in the middle and high schools so that
he may affect change in the culture of the organization. Superintendent, M. Richard Schera,
intention was to improve the image of the school system. He said, “The whole effort is meant
to be a commitment to the community that the status quo isn’t good enough, and that we are
committed to significantly improved student performance at all levels.” In Schera’s plan,
the principal’s title is redefined as “headmaster” and the assistant principals are called
“housemasters.” He foresaw this change as a drive to help improve the performance of the
sub-par school district (ZWire.com).

Other organizations have diversified their job titles for both internal and external reasons. They
changed titles internally to create a sense of pride and individualism in the workplace. Some
organizations are creating original job titles which entail new duties and create unique roles in
the company. One example of an emerging job title according to the Office Team website is a
“staffing specialist.” The staffing specialist works as a liaison between the human resources
department and senior executives in a firm. The staffing specialist provides consultative services
regarding employment trends and offers his/her service to help the organization allocate their
resources in the most effective way (Officeteam.com).

Organizations attempt to inject creativity and fun in their job titles. This trend erupted with the
dot.com boom but has entrenched itself into more traditional organizations. Proof of this
evolution is found in the job title of the head of American Online’s matchmaking service,
“CEO of Love.” In the 1980’s this move toward creating a fun workplace occurred at
Apple Computers. An executive of Apple computers called himself the “evangelist”. He
believed this job title reflected his mission - to recruit people to be enthusiastic about the
company’s line of Macintosh computers (Shim 1992:1d).

Job titles can, in essence, shape the culture of an organization both internally and externally
because titles define the role of each employee within a firm. Today even more staid
organizations are restructuring their culture through the implementation of new job titles.
Companies should, however, be aware that steering too far off the beaten track may confuse the
customers and employees alike. Organizations should make sure that their job titles properly
reflect the culture as intended and propose titles which properly mirror their image in today’s
society.

Language plays a significant role in defining and influencing the culture of an organization as
exemplified by dissecting job titles. In addition to the language of job titling, many organizations
can have own unique and distinct corporate lingo or jargon. With the increasing diversity in the
workplace this issue has become much more prevalent and sensitive in today’s society.
Corporate language can be made up of words and phrases at two levels of an organization. At
higher management levels, language is meant to be a descriptor of how an organization is
perceived by the external community consisting of customers, executive board members and
shareholders. At the personnel level, the language of a company is revealed in the way words and
phrases are spoken and the manner that employees perceive the “real” meaning of the
language. Richard Haymes reflects, “Language drives behaviors and behavior affects
language” (Haymes 1995:222). Conversely, corporate lingo can have a negative effect on the
culture of a company. Offensive and foul language in the workplace can have a detrimental
effect on both the employees of an organization and on the firm’s perceived image. This
trend can lead to the dismissal of employees or even legal issues. Companies should enforce
guidelines for ethical behavior to help avoid the potential of a corporate image.

Corporate lingo is unique in the fact that it is defined by each individual business. The culture is
influenced by the leaders and to a greater extent by the employees. The employees set the tone of
the culture through their daily language and behavior in the workplace.

Corporations, like any other organization, have their own dynamics and culture. While many
characteristics build the sum of this culture, it is language that serves as the foundation of a
firm’s identity. Corporations invest a great deal of time and resources developing their
corporate culture. Companies begin with a vision, which is articulated in the mission statement.
This mission statement then becomes the roadmap for the culture of the organization. This aspect
of corporate culture can be manipulated to forge the path an organization wishes to travel. If a
large corporate change needs to occur, whether to adjust externally to customer demand or
internally to employee performance, they may begin with changing the mission statement of the
organization. This rearticulating not only reflects their commitment to change, but serves as an
incentive to readjust the perception of the culture and values with the organization. Mission
statements, however, do not stand alone in shaping culture within an organization.
Each corporation must work to maintain its culture and influence. This maintenance is done
through carefully constructed corporate communications. Many companies, as a rule, only permit
a few trained members to write press releases or speak to the media. This policy is in place
because every word that comes from any member of that organization represents the opinions
and beliefs of that firm as a whole. These communications are essential to an organization’s
reflection of culture. Firms realize that their use of language is essential in quest for survival.
Therefore, they closely monitor all communications that flow through and out of their
organization. While external communications are critical, internal corporate communication flow
is vital. Evidence of this notion can be seen in careful deliberation and manipulation of job
descriptions and titles.

While there are still many organizations that maintain traditional job titling, there are many
others that have realized that one’s job title can affect how that person views their position as
a member of the corporate culture. As with the mission statement, hierarchy in an organization
may choose to alter job titles to affect change in the culture of the corporation. It is this
realization that has forged the way for new job titles, such as staffing specialist or team leader.
These titles, then, not only affect the culture of the organization in creating a more relationship-
oriented work environment, but are also the result of companies’ new emphasis on an
employee-focused culture.

One cannot not communicate. Language is a deliberately constructed method for

communication. Groups, large and small, use language in everyday communications. This
language has both been created by the group and for group. Thus, language becomes the most
obvious and pervasive aspect of a culture. Therefore, it is an important tool in understanding not
only how an organization views itself, but also in recognizing desires for specific external
perception. A corporation begins with a mission statement and progresses into a constantly
evolving entity with established rules and norms, which help to create a distinct culture. These
rules are then reflected in everything that corporation says and does. If the wrong message is
delivered, even in error, it could prove devastating to an organization. Consequently, companies
must be mindful of their language.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anonymous. Does Your Mission Statement Generate Results or Laughs?. IOMA’s Pay for

Performance Report, 02, (2002), p. 6-8.

Anonymous. (2002). Monster World, Fast Company [online]. Available:

http://www.fastcompany.com/online/21/monster.html. (February 15, 2003).

Cheney, G. and Thompkins, PK. Coming to Terms with Organizational Identification and
Commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 69, (1987).

Corporate Communication Institute. Farleigh Dickinson University [online]. Available:

www.corporatecomm.org. (February 16, 2003).
Fiol, Marlene C. Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming Organizational
Identities. Organization Science, 13, no. 6, (2002), p. 653-666.

Geertz, Clifford. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Available:

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/culture-definitions/geertz- text.html.
(February 5, 2003).

Haymes, Richard D. “Corporate Lingo: A New Meaning”. ETC, v. 52 (1995), p. 222-227.

Holtzman, Michael. New job titles, descriptions in works [online]. Available:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6715110&BRD=1712&PAG=461&dept_i
d=24361&rfi=8. (January 16, 2003).

Infante, Dominic A., Rancer, Andrew S., Womack, Deanna F. (1993). Building Communication
Theory. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

Latham,Tim. Injecting fun into job titles. New Strait Times-Management Times, (2002), p. 50-
55.

Lens Crafters. (2002). About Us [online]. Available: http://www.lenscrafters.com. (February 11,

2003).

Levesque, Carl. A Matter of Being. Association Management, 55, (2003), p. 63-67.

Lucent Technologies. (2002). About Us [online]. Available: http://www.lucent.com. (February

11, 2003).

Muo, Ik. (2002). Corporate Culture and Performance. Business Day [online]. Available:
http://www.bday.org/article_806.shtml (November 27, 2002).

National Research Foundation. (2002). Corporate Communication and Public Relations [online].
Available: http://www.nrf.ac.za/corporate/communication. (February 16, 2003).

Nauheimer, Holger. Vision [online]. Available: http://home.snafu.de/h.nauheimer/vision.htm.

(February 15, 2003).

Officeteam.com. (2003). Top Job [online]. Available: www.officeteam.com/OT/TopJobTitles.

(February 12, 2003).

Sawhney, Mohanbir. Create Value from Values; The Purpose of Business is Greater Than Profts.
CIO, 16, (2002), p. 102-104.

Schermerhorn, John R., Hunt, James G, Osborn, Richard, N. (2003). Organizational Behavior.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Shim,Grace. (2003). What’s in a title? Omaha World: The Omaha World-Herald, September
23, 2003, Sect 1D, p. 1.

Shu, Yang. (2001). Women and Language, 24, no. 1, (2001), p. 24-28.

Sneider,Julie. Speaker to give audience the word on foul workplace language. The Business
Journal-Milwaukee, 19, (2001), p. 2.

Wheatcroft, Patience. (2002). The Human Factor. Management Today, 31, (2002), p. 56-58.

Whorf, Benjamin L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.