HOW LANGUAGE AND CULTURE DISTORT THE MANAGEMENT CONCEPT: AN ATTEMPT TO COMPARE FRENCH AND AMERICAN MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIONS - Cerefige
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
HOW LANGUAGE AND
CULTURE DISTORT THE
MANAGEMENT CONCEPT:
AN ATTEMPT TO COMPARE
FRENCH AND AMERICAN
MANAGEMENT
REPRESENTATIONS
Bertrand AGOSTINI
Associate Professor ICN Business School
Cahier de Recherche n°2012-06
Université de Lorraine
CEREFIGE
13 rue Maréchal Ney
54000 Nancy
France
Téléphone : 03 54 50 35 80
Fax : 03 54 50 35 81
Cerefige@univ-nancy2.fr
www.univ-nancy2.fr/CEREFIGE
n° ISSN 1960-2782
1How Language and Culture Distort the Management Concept:
An Attempt to Compare French and American Management Representations
Résumé : Langue et culture sont inséparables. Elles se nourrissent et s‟influencent
mutuellement. Par conséquent, selon son évolution historique, un mot donné peut
comporter plusieurs significations différentes. En outre, étant une manière de
communiquer nos perceptions, la langue est soumise aux 4 fonctions de la conscience :
les sens, la raison, l‟intuition, et les sentiments. Il s‟ensuit que la relation fondamentale
entre langue et culture est à la fois rationnelle et irrationnelle. Le but de cet article est de
montrer, à travers une série d‟exemples, que dans un contexte de management, au-delà
de l‟utilisation d‟une terminologie particulière, il existe une préconception variable des
objets décrits par les mots qui affecte la perception d‟une réalité ou d‟une représentation
culturelle et managériale donnée. Par conséquent, les mots « management »,
« organisation », « hiérarchie » offrent une large variété de significations et de
représentations qui varient d‟une culture à l‟autre. Ainsi que l‟affirme Gérard Tiry
(1994), les préconceptions que nous portons nous mettent constamment dans un état
d‟esprit comparatif qui altère la situation en imposant un cadre, un point de départ, une
direction et une évaluation.
Abstract: Language and culture are inseparable. They feed and influence each other.
Therefore depending on its historical evolution, a given word can be filled with several
different meanings. Furthermore, being a way to communicate our perception, language
is submitted to the 4 functions of consciousness: senses, thought, intuition, feeling.
Therefore the fundamental relationship between language and culture is both rational
and irrational. The aim of this article is to show through a series of examples that in a
management context, beyond the use of a particular terminology, there is a variable
preconception of the objects described by words that affect the perception of a given
managerial cultural reality or representation. Therefore the words “management”,
“organization”, “hierarchy” offer a wide variety of meanings and representations that
vary from one culture to another. As Gérard Tiry (1994) puts it, the preconceptions that
are in ourselves constantly put us in a comparative state of mind that distorts the
situation by imposing a frame, a starting point, a direction and an evaluation.
Mots-clés :
Langue, culture, signification, management, perception.
Keywords:
Language, culture, meaning, management, perception.
21. Why representation?
Our work is based on the studies of several researchers such as Whorf (1956) who have
paved the way of linguistic relativism as opposed to universalism, of which Chomsky
(1979) remains the emblematic proponent. Whorf asserted that “users of markedly
different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of
observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and
hence are not equivalent as observers but must arrive at somewhat different views of the
world.”1. In other words, Whorf meant that language impacts and conditions the way
one thinks. However, as Beamer & Varner (2007) remind us, “Whorf‟s hypothesis that
language organizes reality has been largely discredited. Perception is viewed as a habit
that can be learned and changed, not something programmed. Perception constructs
reality, but the extent to which language limits perception is not clear”. 2 Therefore, we
must take into account other approaches, particularly that of Kleiber who claims that the
world would not preceed speech3. Therefore human beings would subjectively
categorize reality through a particular way of thinking which is submitted to a particular
language. Furthermore, according to Lim (2003) functional relativism suggests that
“the forms of language encode a socially constructed representation of the world.
Because different cultures have different environments, values, beliefs, and attitudes,
their languages tend to be different from each other”4. As Lim explains, “this
perspective seemingly reverses the direction of causality of Whorf‟s proposition.”5
However, from both propositions arises the idea of a “constructed representation of the
world”.
Let us now begin from the following Eastern statement: we produce the world in which
we live. We see things as they appear and not as they are. As Gérard Tiry said: « The
latest discoveries in quantum physics have led researchers to believe that the thing-in-
itself (noumena) is intangible. We will never be able to have access to it. We can barely
grasp phenomena in their manifestations. Furthermore what I see, observe is nothing but
a representation of reality, my representation »6. Here Tiry opposes the two basic
Western conceptions of reality. For Descartes, the creation is outside man who can talk
about it objectively and discover it. On the contrary, for Kant, the thing-in-itself as it
exists without the observer is unknowable.7
Today the Kantian idea has been proved scientifically by quantum physics together with
the ancient Eastern conception that movement and transformation are two permanent
features of nature. It is also worth noticing that the West has understood existence and
1
Whorf, B. L., Language, Thought, and Reality, New York, John Wiley, 1956, p. 121.
2
L. Beamer, I. Varner, Intercultural Comunication in the Global Workplace, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New
York, 2007, p. 185.
3
Kleiber, G. « Sens, référence et existence : que faire de l‟extralinguistique ? », Langages. No 127, 1997,
p. 11.
4
Lim, T-S, “Language and Verbal Communication Across Cultures” in Cross-cultural and Intercultural
Communication, William B. Gudykunst, Sage Publications, 2003, p. 76.
5
Ibid.
6
Gérard Tiry, Connaître le réel, Mythes ou réalités, 1994, p. 10. With this assertion, we could also cite
Alfred Korzibsky‟s General Semantics the primary principle of which is “The map is not the territory”;
hence “the word is not the thing”. See Alfred Korzibsky, Science and Sanity, 5th Edition, International
Non-aristotelian Publishing Company, 1983.
7
Ibid., p. 11.
3structure through the logos, whereas the East (particularly China) has used the “siang”
or “image”.
We would therefore be faced basically with three types of hurdles in our grasping of
reality which remains unidentifiable: 1) the observer (us) can only observe his own
representation of reality; 2) what we call reality is in constant movement and
transformation; 3) we depend on the logos to explain reality.
According to Jung, the observer is a self that is divided into two parts. The inferior part
is unconscious to us. It includes memories, subjective contributions, affects and
unconscious irruptions. The superior part is made of 4 functions that we use to orientate
ourselves in the outside world: senses, intuition, thought, feeling8 . Each individual uses
these functions in his or her own way.
Exhibit 1 : Jung’s 4 Functions
Feeling
Senses Intuition
Thought
Senses indicate what we want to notice, look at, hear (irrational function). In order to be
pure, senses must not include any judgment nor be directed. They must be irrational. It
is important to note that the substance of the real deteriorates from the sensations up to
the language9. Intuition is opposed to senses and indicates an evolution of things
(irrational function). It is the domain of suppositions, forebodings, vague impressions.
Thought is used in order to know what a thing is (rational function). It is a rational
function because it judges and excludes. Note that the affective color of our thoughts
plays a role in our construction of realities and their affirmation10. Feelings are opposed
to thought and indicate what value the thing has for us (rational function). It is a rational
function that formulates a precise judgment. Feelings have no correspondence in
nature11.
8
C. G. Jung, L’homme à la découverte de son âme, Petite bibliothèque Payot, Paris, pp. 95-103 (Modern
Man in Search of a Soul, 1955 ed. Harvest Books).
9
Connaître le réel, Mythes ou réalités, op. cit. p.12.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
4The following diagram attempts to show how an individual understands reality through
a complex psychological mechanism:
Exhibit 2 : Representation of Reality
Observer
Self
Memories Senses
Subjectives Intuition
contributions
Thought
Affects
Feeling
Unconscious
irruptions
Language
(analogies,
metonimy,
connotation)
Symbols
Opinions
Preconceptions
Representation
of reality
(culture)
At the beginning we find the observer/self with the inferior and superior parts
mentioned by Jung. Then the 4 functions of consciousness: senses, thought, intuition,
feeling are submitted to language (logos). Language, being our way to communicate,
expresses the 4 functions of consciousness through a complex mechanism of analogies,
metonymy and connotations. At the same time, language also conveys and feeds
symbols and opinions, which in turn, generate preconceptions. It is interesting to note at
this point that opinions reflect our scale of appraisal and our personality and that
symbols forbid any penetration of the real12. Finally it follows that the representation of
reality ultimately builds culture.
12
Ibid.
5From this diagram, we can therefore consider that language and culture are inseparable
(they feed and influence each other) and that the relationship between language and
culture is both rational and irrational. As Beamer and Varner put it: “…,culture and
language are intertwined and shape each other. It is impossible to separate the two.
Language is not a matter of neutral codes and grammatical rules. Each time we select
words, form sentences, and send a massage, either oral or written, we also make cultural
choices…If we select language without being aware of the cultural implications, we
may, at best, not communicate well and, at worst, send the wrong message.”13
In the light of these observations, our understanding of the world of management is then
purely subjective and is always to be reconsidered since its meanings and contexts
constantly change and evolve. Thus it seems that the only true approach of management
should be interdisciplinary or holistic, which includes the biological, psychological and
social elements.
There is a variable preconception of the objects described by management terminology
that affects the representation of managerial cultural realities. Our preconceptions
constantly put us in a comparative state of mind that distorts the managerial reality
through our own frame, direction and evaluation. Therefore words such as
“management”, “organization”, hierarchy” offer a wide variety of meanings and
representations that vary from one culture to another.
2. Etymology of « management » and selected associated terms in English and
French
In order to illustrate our purpose, we shall now attempt to compare French and
American practices. For clarity purposes, we have decided to concentrate solely on the
word “Management” in its noun and verb forms. Similarly, we have selected only a few
synonyms in each language. However there are many others that could be added in
order to make up for a comprehensive study of the historical evolution of management
terminology in both languages and cultures. Note that we have included a few words,
particularly in English, that are no longer used today. In so doing we wanted to bring
out the historical development of the terminology.
13
Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace, op cit., p. 46.
6Exhibit 3: Etymology of « management » and selected associated terms in English
and French
English French
MANAGEMENT commentary MANAGEMENT commentary
Management (1598: the In use Management (fr. E * In use
action or manner of management “the
managing; -1715: a conducting or supervising
negotiation; 1715: power of of a business”, 1921)
managing, administrative
skill; 1739: A governing
body) fr. L* manus hand.
(Meton.) authority, power,
might;
It* maneggiare handle fr.
mano hand)
Administration (-1791: In use - Support Administration In use
the action of administering; structure for (administration,
service, attendance; -1611: decision-making management, running)
execution of; 1681: (1250 fr. L administratio
management of public service, conduct, direction,
affairs) (ME administren, management)
fr. MF administrer, fr. L
adminsitrare to serve)
Leadership (1579: ability In use Leadership (leadership, In use
to manage, govern) (ME authority, guidance) (1878
leden, fr. OE laeden, akin pol. fr. E leader, econ. end
to OHG leiten to lead, OE of XXth C.)
lithan to go)
Direction (1509: the action Not used Direction (management, In use
of guiding, instructing; running, leadership,
conduct, management, directing, supervision,
administration) (ME conducting) (1327 fr. L
direction, fr. F. direction or directio directing,
L. directio) rectitude; 1771 managing
position)
No English Gestion (management, In use
equivalent administration) (1481 fr. L
gestio management)
Conduct (1470: leadership, Not used as Conduite (running, In use (operational)
command; 1475: direction, A noun conducting, management,
management, handling) supervision, leading) (Xth
(alter. of ME* conduit, fr. C. fr L ducere lead, guide)
OF*, act of leading,
escort, fr. L ducere lead,
guide)
No English Exploitation (operating, In use (operational)
equivalent running) (1340 fr. L
explicare accomplish ;
1776 commercial
utilization)
Supervision (1640: action In use (project) Supervision (supervision) In use
or function of supervising) (1921 fr E supervise)
7(fr. L supervidere to see)
Oversight (1449: Not in use See French
supervision, charge, care, “supervision”
management) (OE
oferseon, fr. ofer- Over- +
See)
No English Encadrement In use
equivalent (management, supervision)
(1756 fr. It quadro square,
fr. L quadrus; 1839 mil.
manage, organize)
Steering (1903: as in In use Pilotage (management, In use (general)
steering committee US) steering) (1484 fr. I piloto,
(ME steren, fr. OE stieran, pedoto fr. G pedon helm;
akin to OE steor steering XXth C. management)
oar, Gk* stauros stake,
cross, L stare to stand)
Control (1590: the fact of Not in use except Contrôle (control, In use (operational)
controlling and directing in “management checking, inspecting) (1422
action, domination control” fr. contrerolle, copy of an
,command, sway; 1594: account, XXth C. fr E
restraint, check) (fr. MF* control)
contreroller, fr. contrerolle
copy of an account)
Responsibility (1787: the In use Responsabilité In use
state or fact of being (responsibility) (1788 fr E
responsible; 1796: a charge responsibility)
or trust or duty for which
one is responsible) (ME
respounse, fr MF respons,
fr. L responsum reply)
Organization (1707: an In use Organisation (organization, In use
organized structure, body, setup) (1390 fr. L organum
or being; an organism; tool, mechanism; 1798
1816: the action functioning)
organizing; 1873: an
organized body, system, or
society) (ME, partly from
OE organa, fr. L organum,
fr. Gk organon, lit. tool,
instrument)
MANAGE commentary MANAGER commentary
Manage (1561: to train a In use Manager (fr. E to manage In use
horse; 1586: to handle a to supervise, to run a
weapon or instrument; business, 1927)
1600: to handle a ship;
1609: to control the affairs
of a household, institution,
state; 1649: to administer
(finance, provisions, etc.);
1655: to operate upon) fr.
L manus hand. (Meton.)
authority, power, might;
It maneggiare fr. mano
hand
Administer (1430: to Not in use Administrer (manage, run) Rarely used
8manage and dispose of the (XIIth C. fr. L administrare
estate of a deceased person; serve, direct, govern,
1712: to minister to) (ME administer)
administren, fr. MF
administrer, fr. L
administrare to serve)
Run (1864: to direct, In use No French equivalent
conduct, carry on a
business, etc. fr. US) (ME
ronnen, alter. of rinnen to
run)
Lead (1642: to be chief of) In use Mener (lead) (Xth C. fr. L In use
(ME leden, fr. OE laeden, minare threaten)
akin to OHG leiten to lead,
OE lithan to go)
No English Diriger (manage, run, in In use
equivalent charge of, direct, supervise,
oversee) (1495 fr. L dirigere
align, direct, conform)
No English Gérer (manage) (1445 fr. L In use
equivalent gerere administer,
accomplish)
Conduct (1450: to lead, In use Conduire (run, manage, In use
command; 1791: direct an supervise, lead) (Xth C. fr L
orchestra, a meeting; 1632: ducere lead, guide )
to manage) (alter. of ME*
conduit, fr. OF*, act of
leading, escort, fr. L
ducere lead, guide)
Carry (1590: to conduct, Not in use No French equivalent
manage an affair, etc.
obsolete ) ME carrien, fr.
ONF* carier, fr. car
vehicle, fr L carrus
Steer (-1678: to govern, Not in use Piloter (manage) (1484 fr. I In use
rule; -1647: to conduct a piloto, pedoto fr. G pedon
business, negotiations, etc. helm)
obsolete) (ME steren, fr.
OE stieran, akin to OE
steor steering oar, Gk*
stauros cross, L stare to
stand)
Handle (1523: to manage, In use (concrete No French equivalent
direct, conduct, control) sense)
ME handel, fr. OE handle;
akin to OE hand
No English Exploiter (run, operate) In use
equivalent (1340 fr. L explicare
accomplish)
Supervise (1588; 1645: to In use Superviser (supervise) In use
oversee, have the oversight (1921 fr E supervise)
of, superintend ) (fr. L
super +videre to see)
Oversee (1449: to In use See French
superintend, supervise, to “superviser”
see after the doing or
working of; 1548: to act as
an overseer) ME seen, fr.
OE seon, akin to OHG
sehan to see
9No English Encadrer (train, supervise) In use
equivalent (1752 fr. It quadro square,
fr. L quadrus; 1839 mil.
manage, organize)
Control (1475: to check or Not in use Contrôler (control, check, In use
verify; 1495: to dominate, (negative inspect, supervise) (1422,
command) (fr. MF* connotation) XXth C. fr E control)
contreroller, fr. contrerolle
copy of an account)
Organize (1816: t-o give a In use Organiser (organize) (end In use
structure to) (ME, partly of XVIIIth C. provide a
from OE organa, fr. L structure fr. L organum
organum, fr. Gk organon, mechanism)
lit. tool, instrument)
Decide (1830: determine, In use Décider (decide) (1403 fr. L In use
resolve) (ME deciden, fr. decidere cut, terminate,
MF decider, fr. L decidere, conclude)
lit., to cut off, fr. de +
caedere to cut)
MANAGER commentary MANAGEUR commentary
Manager (1588: one who In use Manageur (fr. E to manage In use
manages; 1670 one skilled to supervise, to conduct
in managing affairs, (1865); fr. manager person
money; 1705: one who in charge of a company,
manages a business) fr. L 1961)
manus hand. (Meton.)
authority, power, might;
It maneggiare fr. mano
hand
Administrator (1533: one (public sector) Administrateur (manager, In use (board,
who administers; 1855: one administrator) (XIIth C. fr. L information system)
who has the faculty of administrator
organizing; 1514: one who administrator)
administers an estate) (ME
administren, fr. MF
administrer, fr. L
administrare to serve)
Leader (guide) (ME leden, In use Leader (leader, guide) In use
fr. OE laeden, akin to OHG (1839 pol. fr. E leader; econ.
leiten to lead, OE lithan to end of XXth C.)
go)
Director (1632: a member In use Directeur (manager) (end of In use
of a board appointed to XVth C. fr. L directio
direct the affairs of a directing, rectitude)
commercial corporation or
company) (ME directen, fr.
L directus, pp. of dirigere
to set straight, direct)
Executive (revived in late In use No French equivalent
XVIII c.) ME, fr. MF, fr L
executio; fr. exsecutus, pp.
of exsequi to execute, fr.
ex+sequi to follow)
No English Pilote (manager) (1484) fr. I In use
equivalent piloto, pedoto fr. G pedon
10helm)
No English Dirigeant (manager) (1835 In use
equivalent fr L dirigere align, direct,
conform; 1900 person who
manages)
No English Patron (manager) (1119 fr. In use
equivalent L patronus protector, fr.
pater father; 1834
manager)
Boss (1822, orig. US: a In use Boss (boss) (1860 fr. pop. In use
business manager, any one Am* manager)
who has the right to give
orders) (fr. D baas master;
akin to Fris baes master)
No English Cadre (manager) (1549 fr. It In use
equivalent quadro square, fr. L
quadrus; 1931 executive,
manager)
Head (OE: chief, captain, In use Chef (manager) (Xth C. fr. In use
ruler, principal person , chief, fr L caput head;
head man) (ME hed, fr. OE XIIIth C. commander,
heafod; akin to OHG houbit leader, manager)
head, L caput)
Decision-maker (XXth C. In use Décideur (decision-maker) In use
manager, executive) (1969 prob. fr. E decider)
No English Responsable (person in In use
equivalent charge) (XIVth C. fr. L
responsus answer,
correspondance, symetry ;
XVIIIth C. to be
responsible for)
Supervisor (1454: a person In use No French equivalent
who exercises general
direction or control over a
business, a body of
workmen, etc.) (fr. L super
+videre to see)
* ME (Middle English); OE (Old English); MF (Middle French); L (Latin) Gk (Greek), It (Italian);
E (English) Am (American English); OHG (Old High German), ONF (Old North French)
2.1. Word development
Throughout the centuries, we can notice that the English and French languages have
borrowed words from each other. This process is unavoidable as languages are not static
intrinsically. They have their own life and existence. They constantly evolve and perfect
themselves. Consequently they feed from one another and in the process acquire a part
of other foreign cultures which they integrate into their own. Today, this process is even
more acute with the quick rise and development of information technology (particularly
the internet).
2.1.1. English Language
The English word “management” and its synonyms or associated words are a good
example. We can find three categories of developments.
11a) Category 1 (words coming from Old English, Middle English, Old North
French, Latin and Greek)
“Supervise, supervision, supervisor” come directly from Latin. “Organize,
organization” come from Middle English, Old English, Latin and Greek. “Director”
comes from Middle English, Latin. “Carry” comes from Middle English, Old North
French, Latin.
b) Category 2 (words coming from Italian, Old French, Middle French, Middle
English, Dutch)
As one can see “management” was borrowed from Italian “Maneggiare”, which means
“handle”. “Administration, administer, administrator” come from Middle English,
Middle French. “Control” comes from Middle English, Middle French. “Decide,
decision” come from Middle English, Middle French. “Executive” comes from Middle
English, Middle French. “Responsibility” comes from Middle French. “Conduct” comes
from Old French, Middle English. “Boss” comes from Dutch.
c) Category 3 (words coming from Old English, Middle English, Old High
German)
“Run” comes from Middle English. “Leadership, lead, leader” come from Old English,
Middle English, High Old German. “Steer” comes from Middle English, Old English,
Greek and Latin. “Head” comes from Middle English, Old English, Old High German.
“Oversee” comes from Middle English, Old English, Old High German. “Handle”
comes from Middle English, Old English.
2.1.2. French language
In French, the word “management” was borrowed from the English “management” in
1921. Indeed, before that time, the French used other words which they continue to use
today.
Those words come into the following two categories:
a) Category 1 (words coming from Latin and Greek)
“Administration, administrer, administrateur” come from Latin. “Direction, directeur,
diriger, dirigeant” come from Latin. “Gérance, gérant, gestion, gérer » come from Latin.
« Conduite, conduire” come from Latin. “Exploitation, exploiter” come from Latin. «
Encadrement, encadrer, cadre » come from Latin. « Contrôle » comes from Latin. «
Responsable » comes from Latin. “Organisation, organiser” come from Latin. “Mener”
comes from Latin. “Décider” comes from Latin. “Patron, chef” come from Latin.
b) Category 2 (words coming from English, Italian, Latin and Greek)
“Manager, management, manageur” come from English. “Leadership” comes from
English. “Supervision, superviser” come from English and Latin. “Pilotage, piloter,
pilote” come from Italian and Greek. “Responsabilité” comes from English and Latin.
“Boss” comes from English. “Décideur” probably comes from English.
12With regards to our selection, the French language includes 38 words, of which 38 are
in use today, 0 are not used, and 11 have no equivalent in English. The English
language includes 33 words, of which 26 are in use today, 8 are not used, and 4 have no
equivalent in French.
Exhibit 4 Number of Words
Total Words in Words not Words with Words with
number of use used no no
words equivalent equivalent
in English in French
French 38 38 0 11
English 33 26 8 4
This leads us to the following conclusions: 1) The French seem to have used a bigger
variety of words, which makes it more complex in terms of connotations and
denotations. 2) The fact that the French continue to use very old words may corroborate
their attachment to a historical context (high-context cultures14) and that complexity lies
at the heart of the representation of the French business context. 3) The fact that the
Americans seem to use fewer words indicate a tendency to move towards economy,
simplicity and efficiency.
For now, let us take a look at the historical progression.
2.2. Historical Development
Exhibit 5 Historical Development
Century English words French words
Xth Head (chief) conduite, conduire, mener, chef
XIIth administrer, administrateur, patron
XIIIth administration (mngt), chef (mngt)
XIVth direction, exploitation, exploiter,
organisation, responsable (adj.)
XVth Conduct (leadership, mngt), conduct gestion, gérer, pilotage, piloter, pilote,
(lead, command) oversight (mngt, care), contrôle, directeur, diriger, décider
administer (manage estate), oversee
(superintend, supervise), control (check,
command), supervisor (one who
controls a business)
XVIth Management (action, negotiation), cadre
leadership (abil. to govern), direction
(mngt), control (command, check),
manage (train a horse, handle), carry
(manage an affair), handle (manage,
direct, control), supervise (act), oversee
14
See Hall, E. T., Beyond Culture, Garden City, New York, Doubleday/Anchor, 1976.
13(act as an overseer), manager,
administrator (adm. an estate)
XVIIth Administration (execution of, mngt
pub. aff.), Supervision (action/function),
manage (handle a ship, control affairs,
administer), lead (to be chief of),
conduct (manage), steer (govern, rule,
conduct a business, negotiations),
supervise (superintend), manager
(skilled in managing affairs), director
(member of a board/com. corp.)
XVIIIth Responsibility (charge, duty), leadership (pol.), leader (pol.) direction
organization (organized structure), (mngt), exploitation (mngt),
Management (admin. skill), manage encadrement (mil.), encadrer (mil.),
(minister to), conduct (direct a meeting), responsabilité, organisation (mngt),
manager (one who manages business), organiser, gérant, responsable (mngt)
executive
XIXth Organization (action, system), run gérance, encadrement (mngt), encadrer
(direct business), organize (give a (mil.), manager (sport), dirigeant
structure to), decide (determine), (sport), patron (mngt), boss
administrator (one who can organize),
boss (US, business manager
XXth Steering (US committee) management, leadership (mngt), leader
(mngt), supervision, superviser,
pilotage (mngt), contrôle (mngt),
contrôler, manageur (mngt), dirigeant
(mngt), cadre (mngt), décideur
Historically, French management words appear as early as in English, with a decrease in
the XVIth and XVIIth centuries, indicating a slower progression and development of the
concept of management. Historically and culturally, France is little considered as a
country of organization and management (except for the military until the end of the
XIXth century), but rather as a country that has developed artistic and intellectual
approaches. The late XVIIIth (Enlightenment), XIXth (Industrial Revolution) and XXth
centuries (Technology) are periods during which the French borrowed a lot of concepts
and words from the English language (leadership, leader, supervision, boss, manager,
manage, management), indicating a desire to modernize the country. Today, the French
language continues to use a mixture of old words with historical meanings and new
words borrowed from English and American English. Undeniably, these two categories
of words have an impact on the way the French perceive management. The survival of
old words proves the importance of the past as the closest period (as opposed to the
Americans who value the future)15.
2.3. A quick glimpse at the etymological meanings
The fundamental meaning of words is evolved from the etymology or root meanings of
the words which they come from. What is interesting to notice is that in the case of
English and French, the etymology is very often the same, particularly in the case of
words coming from Latin and Greek. As a matter of fact, French and English languages
belong for a large part to the same family since they both use words coming from the
same origin (the English language borrowed a lot of words from the French language in
15
See Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C., Riding the Waves of Culture, Understanding Cultural
Diversity in Business, Nicholas Brealey, 2nd edition, 1997.
14the Middle Ages and French was spoken at the court of England for a long time. The
same thing can be said of Italian for a shorter period of time).
However, the two languages, according to their evolutions, have developed in different
directions, have adopted words for certain situations and used synonyms for others.
Therefore we come up with different representations of the managerial reality.
Let us take a close etymological look at a few examples of words from our selection:
English “Management” comes from Italian “maneggiare”, itself coming from Latin
“manus”, hand, therefore metonymically16: authority, power, might. In English,
“management” has kept these two historical meanings of both handling and authority.17
French “direction”, which is close to English “management”, comes from Latin
“directio”, rectitude, directing, therefore metonymically: putting on a straight line, to
align. Note that this word does not etymologically mean “authority” or “manipulate” as
is the case in English. In French, “direction” has kept the historical meaning of “putting
on a straight line” and “rectitude” particularly in its verbal form “diriger”.
English “steering” comes from Greek “stauros”, “stake”, “cross”, and from Latin
“stare”, “stand”, therefore metonymically: guiding, standing (also suggesting authority).
These meanings have been kept today.
French “piloter” comes from Italian “piloto”, “pedoto”, itself coming from Greek
“pedon“, helm, therefore metonymically: to lead, to govern (helm = “gouvernail” in
French). This meaning has been kept today.
From this brief analysis, we can conclude that the etymological meaning of our selected
words has an unconscious historical and psychological impact on the concept of
management. This impact is somewhat different according to the language and the
culture. For example the original idea of “guiding” and “standing” included in the
English “steering” and the idea of “governing” and “leading” in the French “piloter”.
Unconsciously through the use of a particular terminology, we transport and convey the
historical weight of words when we speak.
2.4. Borrowed words
The process becomes even more complicated when we take a look at words that have
been borrowed.
As stated earlier, French “management” was borrowed from the English language.
Usually, when a word is borrowed, this means that no equivalent concept exists as such
16
Metonymy is the use of the name of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with
which it is associated.
17
According to Geert Hofstede: “However, the word also became associated with the French menage,
household, as an equivalent of "husbandry" in its sense of the art of running a household. The theater of
present-day management contains elements of both manege and menage and different managers and
cultures may use different accents”. See Geert Hofstede, “Cultural constraints in management theories”,
in Thomas, D.C., Readings and Cases in International Management, A Cross-cultural Perspective, Sage,
2003? P. 18.
15in the culture of the borrowing country or that the existing equivalent words are not
accurate enough to encompass the meaning of the borrowed word ( ex: “cowboy” that
has no real equivalent in French or French cooking recipes that have no equivalent in
America). Therefore borrowing “management” from the English language indicates not
a lack of managerial capacity but simply at a given time period, a need to modernize
and add value to the French concept of management.
The French have now appropriated the word and the concept but not the etymological
meaning since the word “management” did not originate in France. Therefore the only
impact is conceptual (or mythical) and the word is used primarily in the context of
company management (not in other sectors of public life such as government
administration where the words “gestion” or “administration” are more used, and
certainly not in any type of managerial activity as is the case in the US. The same can be
said of “manager” and “manage”). In 1970, a French newspaper, La Croix, wrote “The
famous „management‟ is first of all an atmosphere of dynamism” 18. The modern
concept of “management” came from America whose management style has always
been seen by the French as being dynamic, therefore active, energetic, enterprising.
In borrowing and using the terms “management, manager, manage”, the French
managers are becoming less “dirigeants” with an authoritarian connotation. They have
gradually become “managers who “manage” (in the American sense) instead of simply
“direct” or “control”.
2.5. Definitions
The dictionary definitions of “management” in English and French are also essential
here to understand the difference in perception of the concept:
Webster‟s definition: 1: the art or act of managing: the conducting or supervising of
something (as a business); 2: judicious use of means to accomplish an end; 3: capacity
for managing: executive skill; 4: the collective body of those who manage or direct an
enterprise.
Robert‟s definition: 1: the set of knowledge concerning the organization and
management of a company – the application of this set of knowledge to a business, an
enterprise; 2: the managing team of a company.19
Note that the English meaning of management is more extended than its French
counterpart (arranging, being able, looking after, undertaking; managing, etc.), which
shows how much there is a fundamental difference between the French and the
American perceptions of the idea of managing. It seems that the French only have an
academic and professional way of using the word.
18
Le petit Robert, Dictionnaire le Robert – Paris, 1988, p. 1142.
19
Original French definition as found in Le petit Robert, Dictionnaire le Robert – Paris, 2002, p. 1555. “1.
Ensemble des connaissances concernant l‟organisation et la gestion d‟une entreprise. Application de ces
connaissances à une affaire, une entreprise. 2. Equipe dirigeante d‟une entreprise ».
162.6. Denotations and Connotations
Beyond the etymological meaning of “management”, we now must linger over
denotational and connotational meanings. As a matter of fact, we shall see that
denotations and connotations play a big role in building up the cultural surrounding of
the word to the extent of impacting the very concept of management. Roland Barthes
said that most of the time we express ourselves more with connotations than
denotations.20 Therefore some words are not used as they should officially during
business conversations. How true in the case of management. The French, whose
approach of management is rather implicit as opposed to that of the Americans which is
more explicit, use a lot of understatements and connotations instead of getting to the
point. This can be confirmed in the daily life of a company in meetings, conversations
inside and outside offices, and international negotiations.
As can be observed in the definition of the word “management” (see definitions above),
denotations vary in French and English. The English denotation includes the notions of
“conducting” and “supervising” whereas the French one includes the notions of
“organisation” and “gestion”. Perhaps more significantly, in the French denotation,
management is an “ensemble de connaissances” (set of knowledge) whereas in the
English one, it is an “art or act”. Therefore the French denotation would be more
intellectual, and the English one more practical. As a matter of fact, as Barsoux and
Lawrence (1997) put it: “As French executives see it, management is a state of mind,
not a set of techniques. For them it is the ability to think logically and analyze
systematically which sets them apart from the rest of the personel. So to be named
cadre is akin to passing an intelligence test – it is a hallmark of intellectual calibre. It
follows that the title bestows social as well as professional consideration on its
incumbent.”21 Furthermore, Hofstede, opposing the theories of Taylor and Fayol,
mentions that “the French do not think in terms of managers versus nonmanagers but in
terms of cadres versus non-cadres; one becomes cadre by attending the proper schools
and remains it forever; regardless of their actual tasks, cadres have the privileges of a
higher social class and it is very rare for a non-cadre to cross the ranks…” Whereas
Fayol “focussed on the sources of authority… Taylor was not really concerned with the
issue of authority at all; his focus was on efficiency.”22 This cleary points out the
difference between American and French managements. The importance of knowledge
as associated to power and authority can definitely be inferred from the French
denotation of management as opposed to the praticality/efficiency of the
English/American denotation.
As regards connotations, they vary a great deal because they are directly associated to
the individual‟s subjective preconceptions within a given cultural context. It is worth
remembering that in French and from the managers‟ point of view, “management”,
which is a borrowed word, has added the connotation of a spirit of enterprise and a
20
“…, car la société développe sans cesse, à partir du système premier que lui fournit le langage humain,
des systèmes de sens seconds et cette élaboration, tantôt affichée, tantôt masquée, rationalisée, touche de
très près à une véritable anthropologie historique.” Translation : …, for society constantly develops
secondary systems of meanings from the primary system provided by human language. This elaboration,
sometimes overt, sometimes hidden, rationalized, is close to a veritable historical anthropology. Roland
Barthes, Oeuvres Complètes, Tome II 1962-1967, Editions du Seuil, p. 696 (Elements of Semiology, Hill
and Wang, 1968).
21
Barsoux, J.L. and Lawrence, P.A., French Management, Elitism in Action, Routledge, 1997, pp. 32-33.
22
Readings and Cases in International Management, A Cross-cultural Perspective, Sage, 2003, p. 20.
17sense of leadership and dynamism (contrary to the other French synonyms) to the
concept of management in France. As Hofstede stated, “management as the word is
presently used is an American invention.”23 Therefore, the word management was
rapidly adopted by French managers with its connotations of plenty, efficiency,
pragmatism, performance, productivity, modernity. Yet let us not also forget that
“management” is a word that also bears an American connotation of capitalism which is
considered negatively by some people inside and outside businesses in France. As
Hofstede clearly points out: “In a global perspective, U.S. management theories contain
a number of idiosyncrasies not necessarily shared by management elsewhere. Three
such idiosyncrasies are mentioned: a stress on market processes, a stress on the
individual, and a focus on managers rather than on workers.”24 These idiosyncracies, no
doubt, have influenced both managers and non-managers in France. Non-managers may
perceive the notions of market and individualism through connotations of social
constraint and economic servility where the notion of honor, so dear to French society
which remains stratified, is absent. As Philippe d‟Iribarne said: “It is in the interest of a
French manager to know well which notion of honor the various categories he manages
have, what this honor accepts and what hurts it…It is indispensable to find incentives
such as no one gets the feeling that he is losing his independence in a way that reduces
him to a servile condition.”25
2.7. Cultural Variations
Let us now analyse the French word “cadre” and its declensions “encadrer”,
“encadrement”. This word is not used in American management. The basic meaning is
“frame”, which metonymically refers to structure, architecture, organization. It is a
word that was first used in the army for the officers and non-commissioned officers
(“les cadres”). Then it began to be used in management for the upper category of
employees of a company (“les cadres”, “les cadres supérieurs”). If one works in a
company, he or she then is a “cadre” or is “encadré”. The geometric shape of the square
or the rectangle automatically appears in the mind of a French individual as opposed to
the harmonious image of a circle. Literally this means that a French employee is
submitted to a “frame” that circumscribes his or her freedom of action. This situation
shows how much the French work in a context with a high sense of hierarchy and
limited creativity, which is a way to avoid risks26. Then of course, ultimately, this has an
impact on the “frame” of mind of the French who, when it comes to management,
unconsciously, historically and culturally think in terms of “frames”, indicating rigidity.
Here is another curiosity: The French use the word “patron” for “boss”, “chief”,
“manager”. It is basically the equivalent of English “boss” but the analogies in French
23
Op cit. p. 17.
24
Ibid.
25
Philippe D‟iribarne, La logique de l’honneur, Editions du Seuil, 1989, pp. 98-99. (« Un responsable
français a intérêt à bien connaître quelle notion de l‟honneur ont les diverses catégories qu‟il a la charge
de diriger, ce que cet honneur accepte et ce qui le blesse…Il faut pour cela trouver des formes d‟incitation
telles que personne n‟ait le sentiment de perdre son indépendance d‟une façon qui le rabaisse à une
condition servile. »)
26
Culture's Consequences, International Differences in Work-related Values, op.cit., p. 79, 87-88, 100,
108, 122.
18are interesting. As a matter of fact, “patron” connotes “protection”, therefore the idea of
the “father” (Latin “pater”) who represents the authority and must be obeyed and who is
the head of the company and protects his employees as if they were his children.
Let us take another example:
“Decision”, “decide” are words associated to management in both languages. Yet they
have different analogies. In English, to decide means to arbitrate, hear, rule, pronounce,
decree, award, settle, conclude, confirm, say so, appoint, prescribe, and hold the scales
which indicates a sense of justice and balance.
In French, to decide means : résoudre (sort out), arrêter (appoint, decide on), fixer (set),
but also pousser (push), persuader (persuade), manigancer (plot, devise), tramer (plot)
trancher (cut, sever), indicating, in some cases, a more complex, somewhat negative
perception of the decision-maker who, probably due to the connotative association with
the political world, becomes an aggressive, not to say dishonest or evil person.
2.8. Gender: Feminine/masculine words
Clearly gender plays a bigger role in French than in English. In terms of management,
as in other sectors, this definitely has a strong impact on the way the French will
perceive a given context.
Exhibit 6: Gender in Management (French)
WORD GENDER WORD GENDER EVOLUTION
Management M Manageur M
Administration F Administrateur M
Leadership M Leader M
Direction F Directeur M F
Gestion F Pilote M
Conduite F Dirigeant M F
Exploitation F Patron M F
Supervision F Boss M
Pilotage M Cadre M F
Contrôle M Chef M F
Responsabilité F Décideur M
Organisation F Responsable M F
Encadrement M
For Management, we find only 5 masculine words out of 13. For Manager, we
fundamentally find 12 masculine words out of 12. But although they were masculine in
the beginning, some words are used in a feminine form today.
Modernity and a growing sense of professional equality between men and women has
led to a feminization of some of these words (7 out of 12). However that does not
prevent the connotations from appearing whenever we transform a masculine word into
a feminine one:
19Directeur = Directrice (connotation: school context)
In some cases, the word cannot be feminized. Therefore it is only by adding a feminine
article to the word that we can reach a feminine form. In fact, what happens is that when
we use a masculine word associated with a feminine article, we come up with a
linguistic and cultural confrontation, as if the feminine was facing the masculine: “la
cadre”, “la chef”. Therefore this leads to two different business cultures: one that will
use a feminine form for almost each job, and another that will almost only use the
masculine form of each job whether the person is male or female:
Ex: Mme Dupont, Directeur financier
This article has attempted to explore some of the issues involved in the process of
cultural representations and preconceptions as it impacts the concept of management
through the use of language. After having stated again the fact that language and culture
are inseparable and that their relationship is both rational and irrational, we have tried to
show, through a comparison between French and English uses of the word management,
that our representation of managerial cultural realities is affected by our management
preconceptions, which in turn are affected by our language with its historical
development, its denotations and connotations, its use of gender and its borrowings.
Ultimately then management, being submitted to different representations, would be
more subjective than objective, which would therefore contribute to a never-ending
distortion of its initial concept. We use words to create representations and we shape
mental constructions with words, which leads to anthropocentrism. Today, considering
global business exchanges and the growing predominance of English as the
international language of business and business teaching, the national cultural aspects of
management have a clear tendency to become blurred to the benefit of a global
language.
20Bibliographical References
Barsoux, J.L. and Lawrence, P.A., French Management, Elitism in Action, Routledge,
1997.
Barthes, R., Elements of Semiology, 1964, publ. Hill and Wang, 1968.
Barthes, R., Oeuvres Complètes, Tome II 1962-1967, Editions du Seuil, 1994.
Beamer, L. and Varner, I., Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace,
McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, 2007.
Chomsky,N. Language and responsibility, Harvester Press, Sussex, 1979.
Descartes, R., Discourse on Method and Related Writings, Penguin Classics, 2000.
D‟Iribarne, P., La logique de l’honneur, Le Seuil, 1989.
Hall, E. T., Beyond Culture, Garden City, New York, Doubleday/Anchor, 1976.
Hofstede, G. H., Culture's Consequences, International Differences in Work-related
Values, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, 1980.
Hofstede, G. H., Cultures and Organizations : Software of the Mind, London ; New
York, McGraw-Hill, 1991.
Hofstede, G. H., Masculinity and Femininity : The Taboo Dimension of National
Cultures, Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications, 1998.
Jung, C. G., L’homme à la découverte de son âme, Petite bibliothèque Payot, Paris
Jung, C. G., Modern Man in Search of a Soul, 1955 ed. Harvest Books.
Kant, E., Critique of Pure Reason, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
Kleiber, G. « Sens, référence et existence : que faire de l‟extralinguistique ? »,
Langages. No 127, 1997.
Korzibsky, A., Science and Sanity, 5th Edition, International Non-aristotelian
Publishing Company, 1983.
Lim, T-S, “Language and Verbal Communication Across Cultures” in Cross-cultural
and Intercultural Communication, William B. Gudykunst, Sage Publications, 2003.
Thomas, D.C., Readings and Cases in International Management, A Cross-cultural
Perspective, Sage, 2003.
Tiry, G., Connaître le réel, Mythes ou réalités, L‟Harmattan, 1994.
21Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C., Riding the Waves of Culture, Understanding
Cultural Diversity in Business, Nicholas Brealey, 2nd edition, 1997.
Whorf, B. L., Language, Thought, and Reality, New York, John Wiley, 1956.
22You can also read
