Believing that people in life should lead, i.e. have influence, rather than unwittingly following others like sheep, this morning I pondered how this could relate to the translation industry...
... and to staff translator positions
Believe me, I'm having incredible fun running a translation business and working with my colleague, Hanna. Customers tell me they're happy, which is of course the goal.
But sometimes the mind wanders and I catch myself thinking on what terms would I ever go back to being a staff translator. Consistently, time and again, my one guiding criterion is management: how does senior management view translation? A cost item to be kept as low as possible? Or an opportunity to impress peers and clients with expertly written prose?
Generally, it is management that sets the tone as to whether translators (and their work) are respected in an organisation, as reflected in the following:
- The translator has a management-level contract (cadre in France, fondé de pouvoir in Switzerland)
- Pay is commensurate with qualifications and experience, on a similar scale to other skilled clerical positions
- The translation team leader participates in top-level meetings, especially regarding branding/marketing in languages other than the company's official tongue.
Any thoughts?
1 comment:
I agree with what you've written, especially your third bullet point. For an in-house translation team to be a true asset, management must recognize that translators have to be included in writing processes from the start. This is especially true in multinational companies who know their in-house and outbound documentation will be translated at some point. Unfortunately, the translation department is often an afterthought that "waves its magic wand" to produce whatever document is needed in another language. The role of in-house translators must change, but this, like you said, can only happen if the idea is embraced by the top.
On a related note, I would add that any company producing enough text to warrant an in-house translation department probably also has recurring types of text. It might be worthwhile to have in-house translators specialize in certain texts and spend some time training in the departments that produce them. For instance, if a company regularly submits EU tenders, the translator would learn about the ins and outs of tenders and public-sector particularities. In the same way, another translator might specialize in corporate communications material, which involves a lot of behind-the-scenes decision-making on style, terminology, etc. Specializations would turn these translators into powerhouse communicators instead of merely members of an in-house agency.
To tie this back into your point, such an approach would require that managers acknowledge the need for a more extensive involvement of translators and agree to the potential increase in costs. In my opinion, it would take a seismic shift in how translators are viewed for this to happen.
- Hanna
Post a Comment