McKinsey Legal is home to a vast network of legal professionals spread across 66 locations worldwide, collectively speaking 30 different languages, with English as a common language. This global reach is not only a testament to our firm’s scale; it’s a reflection of the rich tapestry of cultures, perspectives, and experiences that fuel our practice. For those of us who work here, the power of language goes beyond communication—it’s about forging connections. Here we share three such stories from our colleagues in Asia.
Jinny’s journey: Finding my voice in a global firm
I joined McKinsey Legal as part of the Asia–Pacific (APAC) Legal team, based in the firm’s South Korea office. On my first day, Rita Kriz, head of APAC Legal in Singapore, announced my arrival in a group email. Warm welcome messages quickly filled my newly created email inbox.
“Welcome! I am Zhenyu, based in Beijing.”
“Hi! I am Nurul, based in Jakarta.”
“Welcome to the team! I am Aditi, based in Bengaluru.”
Born and raised in South Korea, where everyone speaks Korean and shares the same skin color, these exotic names from far-off locations piqued my interest and energized me.
The next day was our monthly Asia Legal meeting via Zoom. During these sessions, all integrative and expert legal members get together to share critical developments and knowledge. These meetings are invaluable, as they keep us informed about the latest legal trends and regional updates, fostering a collective expertise that enhances our ability to serve clients effectively. Participants dialed in from Tokyo, Jakarta, Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Beijing, Brisbane, Canberra, Taipei, Bangkok, Bengaluru, Delhi, Mumbai, and Seoul. I was greeted by an unexpected symphony of accents. Our meeting, conducted in English, showcased a mosaic of inflections—from Australian to Japanese, Hindi to Bahasa, Mainland Chinese to Singaporean Chinese, with my own Korean accent among them. I quickly realized that while we all spoke a common language, our unique inflections told the story of our diverse origins, while underscoring our unity in serving clients across the Asia–Pacific region.
Although English is the firm’s default business language, I often switch between English and Korean, depending on the recipient and occasion. This linguistic shift feels like adopting a different persona with each change in language. When speaking English, I feel clearer and more confident, yet slightly lacking in warmth—a concept known as “정” (jeong) in Korean. “정” embodies a deep sense of connection, affection, and community, which can be harder to convey in English.
Understanding Korean relies heavily on context. For instance, to say “I love you” in Korean, you simply say “사랑해” (saranghae), which translates directly to “love.” The speaker and listener rely on context to infer the subject and object. While this can create beautiful and nuanced communication when two parties understand each other well, it can also lead to misunderstandings and difficulties in ensuring clarity. Additionally, using first names is uncommon unless you are close in age or are classmates. At the law firm where I worked prior to joining McKinsey Legal, I was addressed as “Attorney Suh” (서변호사님). It was crucial to get the titles right when addressing clients. Referring to a Bujangnim (부장님, department manager) as Gwajangnim (과장님, section manager) could easily offend the other party.
Switching languages can subtly change relationship dynamics. When I need to strongly emphasize my point or ensure clarity, I switch to English. This helps me overcome the hierarchical barriers present in Korean. However, for building trust and fostering deeper connections, Korean, with its contextual richness, can be more effective.
This dynamic is not unique to legal practice. In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell discusses how Korean Air faced a high number of airplane crashes due to communication issues rooted in Korean hierarchical language. To address this problem, David Greenberg, brought in from Delta Air Lines, set English as the new standard language for Korean Air.1 His goal was to give pilots an alternative identity, free from the sharply defined gradients of Korean hierarchy.
Also in Outliers, Suren Ratwatte, a veteran pilot, explained the benefit of this approach: “On a very simple level, one of the things we insist upon at my airline is that the first officer and the captain call each other by their first names. We think that helps. It’s just harder to say ‘Captain, you are doing something wrong’ than to use a name.”2
_____________________________
“There is a shift in winds when I change languages,” Jinny shared with the team. Apichaya Krairiksh in Thailand and Jonathan Yang in Singapore, both bilingual in their respective languages, agreed and shared their story. Read on to know about their experiences.
______________________________
Apichaya’s insight: The Thai perspective
Greetings in Thai culture begin with a heartfelt “สวัสดีค่ะ” (sawasdee ka), meaning “hello,” accompanied by a “ไหว้” (wai)—a graceful gesture of placing your hands together and bowing your head. This simple act of respect when meeting with an elder colleague or client goes a long way. It opens doors to cooperation and understanding. By acknowledging cultural differences, we build bridges of trust and win hearts, paving the way for meaningful and lasting connections.
Similar to Korean, the Thai language features a hierarchical structure that requires heightened politeness when interacting with senior individuals. This often involves using a different set of formal words, which can add complexity to communication. Fortunately, our standard contracts are drafted in English, allowing us to negotiate and explain terms without the need for these additional layers of politeness, thereby leveling the playing field.
However, there are instances when switching between English and Thai becomes useful. Legal terms in English can sometimes be interpreted differently in Thai, leading to misunderstandings. For example, the word “indemnity” could be misinterpreted as damages or penalty. I experienced this firsthand during a contract negotiation that had been stalled for three months. McKinsey sought to have the client indemnify the firm from personnel-related claims. The client did not understand why they had to be responsible for damages (which includes consequential damages) or pay a penalty to McKinsey if their employees initiated a claim against the firm.
When I met with the client in person and clarified the legal interpretations and the intent of the provision in Thai, they quickly understood that they were not being held responsible for consequential damages or paying a penalty, but only indemnifying McKinsey for the actual amount we suffered from such employees’ claims resulting from the client’s decisions. We were able to finalize and sign the contract swiftly thereafter.
Jonathan’s reflection: The nuances of Mandarin
Most Chinese clients are conversant in English and strive to use it during negotiations and discussions. This effort reflects the Chinese culture of courtesy and respect, where they try to meet the other side halfway. However, in using English, the nuance of the Chinese language is often lost in translation.
For instance, if a Chinese client does not agree to a clause, they might say in Mandarin, “很抱歉” (hěn bàoqiàn) or “很遗憾” (hěn yíhàn). In English, both phrases translate to “sorry,” but in Chinese, they carry different underlying attitudes. “很抱歉” (hěn bàoqiàn) means they know it’s a reasonable ask, but they are sorry that they can’t accept the clause. “很遗憾” (hěn yíhàn) suggests that it is regretful that we asked for such a clause, implying they think it is unreasonable.
The Chinese language isn’t as straightforward as English. The construct of a Chinese sentence subtly shows the attitude and position of the other party. Because of cultural reasons, it is seldom the case that a Chinese counterparty will state their position openly and directly.
As a Harvard Business School working paper states, “Many westerners find Chinese negotiators to be inefficient, indirect, and even dishonest; Chinese negotiators frequently perceive their western counterparts to be aggressive, impersonal, and insincere.”3 Perhaps this is because of the inability of Chinese speakers to accurately convey their views in English.
I also experienced this firsthand. We were negotiating with a Chinese client for hours. The Chinese client often conversed among themselves in Chinese before communicating with us in English. After a while, I realized that what they agreed on in Chinese was not exactly what was conveyed to us in English. I soon realized that this was not going anywhere and asked to speak directly with the client in Chinese. This helped the situation a lot and made the negotiations go much smoother. We were able to finalize and complete the contract within the next hour.
Conclusion: Using the power of language in legal practice
There’s a saying: how you communicate is more important than what you communicate. Bilingual lawyers can influence this “how” through language choices. Speaking English might make you more direct and assertive, while using your native language can build trust and convey warmth.
Strategic use of language is valuable for navigating different cultural and professional contexts. The experiences shared by Jinny, Apichaya, and Jonathan highlight the importance of thoughtful language choices and their impact on building relationships and achieving unambiguous outcomes. It’s not just about communication; by leveraging our linguistic diversity, we enhance our ability to serve our clients, foster deeper connections, and drive organizational success.
1 Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers: The Story of Success, New York, NY; Little Brown & Company, 2008.
2 Ibid.
3 James K. Sebenius and Cheng (Jason) Qian, Cultural notes on Chinese negotiating behavior, Harvard Business School working paper, number 09-076, December 2008.