Crisis management in the canton of Fribourg: how can managers check that a French and a German instruction imply the same action?

In the bilingual canton of Fribourg, the agri-food sector, industry and the university hub often work across the Sarine, switching between French and German in everyday management. For crisis management, the specific question is how to check that an instruction leads to the same operational interpretation in both languages.

What the literature establishes

Helene Tenzer, Markus Pudelko and Anne-Wil Harzing (2014, Journal of International Business Studies) show, in a qualitative study of multinational teams, that language barriers influence trust formation. Difficulties in expression and comprehension can shape judgements about colleagues’ competence or reliability. This research cautions against equating linguistic fluency with operational understanding; it does not, however, measure the execution of instructions during a crisis.

Shared words are not always enough

Paul R. Carlile (2004, Organization Science) distinguishes between transferring, translating and transforming knowledge across professional boundaries. His framework explains why a shared vocabulary may remain insufficient when people attach different meanings to information or must resolve its practical consequences. For a crisis instruction, defining the term “on hold” may therefore be insufficient: the instruction must also specify what it prohibits and what permits the hold to be lifted.

The premature conclusion

One might conclude that a single working language eliminates the problem. The cited research does not support that conclusion: a common language removes neither differences in proficiency nor differences between professional domains. A bilingual document can be useful, but its availability does not demonstrate that recipients draw the same practical conclusions. (our executive and employee training programmes)

What the evidence does not establish

The study on trust concerns neither crises in Fribourg nor an experimental comparison of bilingual procedures. Carlile’s framework does not establish the effectiveness of a particular restatement protocol either. These studies support checking understanding locally, without warranting promises of a measured reduction in errors or delays.

A practical check in Fribourg

In a workshop within SHR’s “Gestion de crise” programme, a hypothetical case could bring together a Fribourg food producer, a bilingual industrial team and a laboratory from the university hub to address a suspect batch. After reading an instruction in French or German, each participant independently describes the immediate action, its scope and the condition for lifting the hold, before any group discussion. The group counts responses that differ from the reference decision on at least one of these elements, then examines whether the differences concern linguistic wording or professional interpretations. A revised instruction is tested on a comparable case: comparing the number of discrepancies provides a verifiable indicator of understanding within the workshop, not proof of performance in a real crisis. To go further: explore the Crisis Management training in Fribourg in the canton of Fribourg, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.

In pictures: Crisis Management in Fribourg

• crisis management
• Fribourg
• research
• training fribourg