When the same workplace has people who do not have a common mother tongue, speaking English is often seen as the easiest and most practical solution. This is understandable, because English is overwhelmingly the best-known foreign language in the Finnish context, and it is often thought to be part of the language repertoire of working aged people. 

Many see English as the egalitarian choice, as it is often used as a lingua franca - a shared language in situations in which none of the participants have English as their first language. Finnish is substituted by English at many workplaces if an employee whose knowledge of Finnish has not been firmly established participates.

Despite its usefulness, English is not a solution in every situation. For one thing, not everyone speaks English fluently. Using burdensome for many Finns - even young Finns - and not even every foreign person arriving in Finland speaks English. Even some of the international experts who use English at work, are not so fluent in the language that they would cope well in social situations, for example, speaking English.

It is good to keep in mind that if a language that is chosen as the one to be used at the workplace is not the mother tongue of every user, there is a danger that a result would be hidden power structures and inequality. A fluent command of English – like a fluent command of Finnish – adds to the possibilities available to an employee, while a lack of language skills can jeopardise a person's professional identity. In Finland the professional identity of someone working as a specialist includes a strong expectation of a command of English. However, if someone speaks English only hesitantly, there might be a reluctance to raise the issue.

Some employees might have an excellent command of English and the ability to comfortably use the language in many situations. However, even they might find that working on new models for solutions can be more difficult if English is the only language used in the situation. Naturally, the challenges are greater for those whose ability to use English is weak.

Most of the time, Finns working in multilingual organisations in Finland often do not expect employees who speak a foreign language to have any Finnish-language skills at all, or to participate in conversations in Finnish. This is also a familiar situation for many others who come from places where a so-called small language predominates. However, in large language areas, such as Germany, France, or Spain, the local language is seen as the natural choice as a corporate language, and a command of the local language is seen as important also from the point of view of socialisation.

People in small language areas people are also gradually waking up to the importance of knowing the local language. Even in a working community that has English as the official language, a lack of skills in the local language makes it more difficult to adapt and integrate into a new country. The lack of a command of the local language might also be an obstacle to career advancement. Those with no command of Finnish can collide with a glass ceiling.

Using Finnish as the primary language of the workplace is beneficial for Finnish employees because they can speak the language that they are most familiar with. This makes their work less burdensome and can improve the quality of the work.

Reasons for using Finnish could include a key role played by customer service in the job, or if Finnish legislation requires the use of domestic languages in public administration, or the social and health care field, for example. In some cases, another reason for choosing Finnish can be that not all employees or collaborative partners speak English or feel comfortable speaking it. When Finnish is the main language of a workplace, it is also natural to deal with external communications in Finnish.

Many working communities use Finnish as their main language, even though not everyone has an equal command of it. Workplaces might also consider knowing Finnish to be important because speaking the language is seen as influencing how an employee enjoys living in Finland and how committed they are to their job. In such situations Finnish continues to be the main language of the working community even if an international worker were to join the group.

Such a linguistic situation can be advantageous for those speaking Finnish as a second language because it opens a possibility for them to develop their Finnish language skills. In the best of cases, workplaces where Finnish is spoken offer plenty of situations that are suitable for learning the language; together with language courses, such a working community is an excellent place to learn professional language skills. When international employees are supported by the working community in learning Finnish from the start, it improves their possibilities for career advancement in Finland, and their commitment to the community as well.

Although using Finnish as the working language is beneficial for the whole working community, the solution is not without its problems. It can be difficult to accommodate the roles of a language learner with those of an employee. It is the experience of many that they are unable to serve as competent professionals in their own fields with inadequate language skills, and that their skills do not always come out when they speak Finnish. Employees using a second language might think that they burden their colleagues with their slow speech and requests for help. Meanwhile, colleagues might grow tired of providing language help and having to deal with the linguistic challenges of the Finnish-learner.

From the point of view of the learner of Finnish, a Finnish-speaking workplace with fluctuating situations can be quite stressful. Speaking and listening to a second language can be exhausting, and working in a new language can take more time than using the stronger language.

In some workplaces people switch languages flexibly according to the needs of the situation and those who are speaking. One concept is that of parallel lingualism – communicating by using two or more languages in parallel. There is also receptive multilingualism, which means that of the common languages, each person uses the one that is strongest for them when they speak. Neither of these principles are usually followed pedantically. For example, parallel lingualism can be implemented in a way that allows languages to be switched at will, while written communication is handled more systematically in both languages.

We can take as an example a conversation between two speakers of different languages –Finnish is the first language of one of them, and Russian is main language of the other. Both understand the language of the other but have difficulties speaking it. In such a situation, the flexible multilingual solution is for each of them speak their own language. If a speaker of Finnish who has no knowledge of Russian joins the conversation, the Russian-speaker can switch to English (if everyone speaks it) but the Finnish-speakers can continue in Finnish. This kind of a puzzle makes it possible to find an optimum solution both for efficiency, avoiding strain, and learning a language.

Parallel lingualism does not need to mean that all speech or all texts would be translated in their entirety. The use of parallel languages can, as it were, force writers to find the most important aspects of a message or document. If, for example, the minutes of a meeting are sent to all participants in three languages, it is best to include only the core aspects of the meeting in the minutes to prevent the text file from becoming too unwieldy. Systematically translating the documents at a workplace into different languages often leads to a situation in which unnecessary rambling, vague concepts, or imprecise jargon gradually start to fade away. Such more coherent communication benefits the entire working community.

Receptive multilingualism requires the speakers to have at least a passive knowledge of each other’s strong languages. In addition, it would be good for those speaking to know each other’s language skills and what their goals in improving these skills might be.

Without open discussion about languages, the language skills of international employees can often be hidden away. In practice, Finnish-speaking employees should have the courage to ask international employees about their wishes for language use, and international employees should have the courage to raise those wishes themselves. If English is spoken at a workplace all the time, the Finnish language skills of employees are not necessarily recognized and there is no encouragement to develop professional Finnish language skills, and the employees’ own wishes are not recognised.

Sometimes people at a workplace might think that parallel lingualism is being implemented there, although the experience of the employees is different. Parallel lingualism brings practical challenges ranging from resources (translating all texts is expensive) to problems of attitude (mixing different languages can be seen as difficult). Parallel lingualism requires a methodical approach and joint decision-making if is to work smoothly.