Mohammed's profile indicates that they are in the Middle East whereas the responses so far all seem to be UK-centric, but I think the principles apply anywhere that society and, particularly those at work may come from different backgrounds.
Communications have always been an issue in the workplace for all aspects of what is to be done, so the question is how to tackle potential lack of understanding - in both directions.
I have recently finished "Paperboy" by Callum McSorley the second of new novels featuring the work of one police officer Alison McCoist, where when the first name is abbreviated to Ally it causes her some repeated nuisance when working in the West of Scotland. If you are into football at all the reason should be relatively obvious.
The book is written almost entirely in Glaswegian patter and I guess that half the population of the UK would have difficulty in understanding it when reading and a greater proportion if the words were actually vocalised.
So, even if we imagined a workforce for all of whom their first language is English there are going to be problems with effective communication both in writing or verbally and the art is to consider what methods of getting a message across and understood will work.
Johnny commented:
I watched a site manager ask a supervisor to get an English-speaking foreign national to translate a simple task. Talk about Chinese whispers? how do you know the information you've just passed on is going to be relayed back to the other staff accurately, without it being simplified, or even being passed on at all?
But what if the person's first language was English but they were deaf and needed someone to use sign language (and assuming Johnny is not accomplished at doing that), would the H&S bod OR, more importantly, line manager, start by assuming that the message won't be adequately translated OR will they largely rely on a degree of trust?
That reliance on trust can be checked to a large extent by seeing what then transpires in practice - but this is not really much different to assessing whether communications done in English are put into effect at the sharp end. If as example the trainer speaking in English asks an audience all of whose first language is English whether they have understood what has been asked and they all nod, does this prove that they have all actually taken the message fully on board? - of course not!
AK points to pictures - exactly why we have international conventions for safety signs and symbols.
Yesterday I got an email and some photos from a mentee in the Middle East. There was a sign about the "Emergency Spill Kit". If the sign had looked even remotely like what a safety sign should have, perhaps the fact that the only language used was English might have been less of an issue.
Lots of projects in the Middle East with migrant labour from many countries, particularly in South East Asia, so inevitably a workforce split into people with different first languages.
In such circumstances identifying someone who can understand the primary language of the project - perhaps English or Arabic - into what different parts of the workforce are familiar with becomes important.
However, exactly the same would apply if much of the project workforce in the UK may come from e.g. Eastern Europe.
It's a problem, but not really any greater a problem than getting through to someone who is deaf, or perhaps has learning disabilities - gone are the days when the only employmenet opportunities in the UK for such people were in dedicated ghettoes set up for them only - hardly conducive to integrating them into the community.