In Basel, is a shared language enough for teamwork?
Across pharmaceuticals, life sciences, Rhine logistics and international R&D in Basel, a common working language connects functions and sites. The management question is specific: how can teams prevent fluency in that language from becoming a misleading proxy for competence or agreement?
What the literature establishes
Helene Tenzer, Markus Pudelko and Anne-Wil Harzing (2014, Journal of International Business Studies) qualitatively examined trust formation in multinational teams in the German automotive industry. Their findings show that language barriers enter into colleagues' judgements of one another, including assessments of competence and reliability. Difficulty expressing a point therefore does not necessarily remain a transmission problem: it can change how a contribution is received.
When language redistributes status
Tsedal Neeley (2013, Organization Science) examined status distinctions associated with the use of English in a global company. Her qualitative study describes how adopting a common language can be accompanied by a sense of status loss among non-native English speakers, while language fluency becomes a source of distinction. This mechanism helps explain why someone's prominence in a discussion does not necessarily reflect the expertise relevant to the decision.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that teams should abandon a common language or systematically translate everything. These studies do not settle that choice: rather, they show that standardising language does not eliminate asymmetries between colleagues. For managers, the challenge is not to treat a quick answer, confident delivery or the absence of objections as sufficient evidence of competence and understanding. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these data do not demonstrate
These qualitative studies illuminate mechanisms, but do not measure the causal effect of a language policy on team performance. They neither quantify a productivity gain from restating decisions nor justify directly transferring their findings to a Basel team. One common practice nevertheless warrants scrutiny: assuming that a decision has been understood because it was announced in the project's official language.
A practical check in Basel
As part of SHR's “Performance d'équipe” programme, one exercise would be a four-week test of decision handovers in a Basel team working in pharmaceuticals, life sciences, Rhine logistics or international R&D. For every decision requiring action, the recipient would restate in writing the expected action, the person responsible and the deadline, after which the sender would confirm or correct that account. The indicator would be the proportion of decisions requiring a correction of understanding before execution, with an explicit denominator: all decisions included in the test. This rate would make gaps in understanding visible, without itself measuring performance or proving that language caused those gaps. To go further: explore the Team Performance training in Basel in the canton of Basel-Stadt, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Team Performance in Basel
- team performance
- Basel
- research
- training basel