They nod, but do they understand? Health and safety instructions in a multilingual team

What an employee confirms when they say “yes”

A foreman explains a new sequence of tasks. The employee nods. A moment later it turns out that they did the first step correctly but did the next one differently from what was intended. The easy conclusion is: “He nodded even though he didn’t understand.” Yet we do not know what he actually understood. He may only have been confirming that he had heard the instruction, he may have known the first part, or he may have interpreted a technical term differently. A gesture on its own is no diagnosis of either skill or sincerity.

Similar misunderstandings also happen between people who speak the same language. In a multilingual team there are simply more points at which an abbreviation, a pronunciation or an unfamiliar term can change the meaning. It is important not to attribute a “culture of nodding along” to an employee on the basis of their country of origin. Any individual may be cautious, self-assured, shy or highly experienced. Rather than guessing what their reaction means, it is better to create the conditions for checking what has really got through to them.

Plain language is a sign of respect, not treating people like children

Work instructions often contain shorthand that is obvious to an experienced foreman. “After the changeover, do a standard start-up and check the parameters” may not be precise enough for someone who is still getting to know the plant. For important tasks, it is worth naming the specific steps, pointing out the relevant markings and making sure the employee understands the exceptional situations. There is no need to speak unnaturally slowly, raise your voice or treat an adult like a child.

The UK’s HSE stresses the need to give migrant workers understandable information about hazards, safety measures and emergency situations. Among other things, it points to clear language, visual materials and appropriate interpreting support. These are useful organisational pointers, not a basis in Polish law. In a Polish workplace, the content and form of the instruction must meet the requirements that apply to the role in question. The aim of the message is a genuine understanding of the work, not merely the use of the correct vocabulary.

Instead of “Do you understand?”, ask about the next step

“Do you understand?” invites a short “yes” or “no”. Even someone who is unsure may say yes so as not to drag the conversation out or appear less competent. A better approach is to ask them to explain in their own words: “I want to check that I’ve explained this clearly. What will you do first, and what will be your signal to stop and call your supervisor?” A question like this means the person giving the explanation also takes responsibility for how clear the instruction is.

The method of checking understanding by asking people to explain in their own words, known as teach-back, is described by the US agency AHRQ in the context of conversations with patients. Using it on the shop floor is an adaptation of a way of checking understanding, not proof that repeating instructions prevents every accident. If the employee gets it wrong, do not say: “No, I explained it perfectly clearly.” It is better to say: “I can see I didn’t explain that point clearly. Let’s try another way.” Then go through the required step again and check it in a way that is consistent with the instruction procedure.

Being able to explain a task is not the same as being able to do it safely

An employee may correctly repeat that the required safeguard has to be applied before cleaning, yet not know what the proper procedure looks like on a specific machine. Conversely, they may carry out a routine task well without understanding a warning about an unusual hazard. That is why you need to distinguish between knowing the words, understanding the meaning, having the practical skill and being formally authorised to do the work. No single signature on a list or friendly chat can stand in for all four.

If the task requires a demonstration, the way it is carried out is decided by the person responsible for instruction and safety. You must never ask an employee to perform a risky task alone on a running machine purely to check whether they understand. That requires the right conditions, supervision and the prescribed procedure. A good manager is able to say: “Don’t start work yet. First we’ll make sure every step is clear and confirmed.” A decision like this does not call the learner’s competence into question; it protects them and their colleagues.

Translation must convey meaning, not just individual words

The plant employs people from different countries with different levels of language proficiency. The worst assumption goes like this: “We’ve got one colleague who knows a bit of both languages, so he’ll translate everything.” For simple information, help from a co-worker may be enough. For hazards, exceptions and messages about stopping a machine, you need to be certain that the person passing on the message understands not only the words but also the technical content and its consequences. The organisation should provide adequate support when an ordinary conversation is not enough.

Use consistent names for tasks, up-to-date materials, clear markings and illustrations appropriate to the workstation. Do not rely solely on machine translation of a critical instruction without checking it. Employees should also know who they can go back to with a question once the training is over. There is nothing shameful about someone knowing the equipment but not yet knowing a local abbreviation or name. Leaving that person with no way of getting an explanation, however, would be serious negligence.

Agree how anyone can flag something unclear and stop work

The team should have a simple, shared way of signalling uncertainty: “Stop, I need to make sure what I’m supposed to do.” This is not the technical procedure for shutting down a machine but a communication rule: whenever something is unclear, the employee should report the problem and follow the applicable safety rules. The manager should show how they respond to such a signal. If they react impatiently, they are telling the team that it is better to guess than to ask. If they calmly clarify, they strengthen people’s willingness to report difficulties.

In Edmondson’s study of manufacturing teams, psychological safety was associated with learning-oriented behaviour. This does not mean that an absence of fear is enough to master a technology. The point is to create conditions in which a question can be asked before a mistake happens. Also check whether what was agreed during instruction is reflected in how the work is done, and whether the records remain correct. Good communication helps people meet their safety obligations; it does not release anyone from them.

In a multilingual team, neither a nod nor the words “I understand” are enough to judge whether an instruction has been properly received. Plain language, questions about the next step, appropriate language support and safe verification of skills all help uncover misunderstandings. They must be combined with the required training, procedures and formal confirmation that someone is ready to do the work.

How Empatyzer helps foremen communicate across a language barrier

Before a briefing or a conversation with an employee from another country, a foreman can describe the situation to Em: which instruction caused the misunderstanding, which words proved difficult and how the employee reacted to previous explanations. Em will help put together a shorter, natural message and prepare questions that check understanding without causing embarrassment. In a conversation about a specific person, if they belong to the same organisation and the privacy settings allow it, the tips can help you choose the right level of directness and the right way to invite questions. In the team context, you can prepare a simple rule: “When we’re not sure, we ask before we act.” Em does not translate approved technical instructions on the plant’s behalf, nor does it assess whether someone is authorised to work. With Em’s help, a supervisor can better prepare a conversation in which people feel able to say what they do not understand, and the supervisor knows how to take that information calmly. Follow-up micro-lessons help consolidate the communication skills needed for day-to-day collaboration.