# What number president is the president of your company?



## meijin

Hi, the following is part of a questionnaire I'm currently translating into English. The questionnaire is to be answered by employees in small and mid-sized companies.

Q. What number president is the president of your company?

1. 1st
2. 2nd
3. 3rd
4. 4th
5. 5th or later
6. No idea/don't remember

Because of the answer options, I decided not to use "How many presidents were there before the current president?" or something similar.
Does the question in the example above sound natural? I've read some of the posts in 42nd President of USA - how to ask a question with an ordinal answer., but my question isn't about the president of a country.


----------



## suzi br

I think the original version is awful.  I like your suggestion better.  I am not reading the link.  That's just my opinion based on this context.


----------



## meijin

Which one is the original version? The question just above the answer options? If so, "How many presidents were there before the current president?", which I didn't really suggest, doesn't go well with the answer options. I prefer not to change the answer options, because the client wouldn't like it.


----------



## suzi br

The original is the first one, that you have (rightly) rejected.
I am not addressing the answer options because you didn't ask about them.


----------



## meijin

The one I rejected is "How many presidents were there before the current president?", and it's the second one. The first one, which I didn't reject, is "What number president is the president of your company?"


----------



## london calling

meijin said:


> The one I rejected is "How many presidents were there before the current president?", and it's the second one. The first one, which I didn't reject, is "What number president is the president of your company?"


Well, you should have rejected "What number president is the president of your company?". "How many presidents were there before the current president?" is so much better.


----------



## heypresto

I think it's worth mentioning that many (most?) small, and perhaps medium-sized, companies won't have a president at all.


----------



## meijin

heypresto said:


> I think it's worth mentioning that many (most?) small, and perhaps medium-sized, companies won't have a president at all.


I wondered about this. So thank you very much for mentioning it. I'll look for another word (obviously most of us Japanese use the same Japanese word for that position regardless of the size of the company).



london calling said:


> Well, you should have rejected "What number president is the president of your company?". "How many presidents were there before the current president?" is so much better.


So, am I right in thinking that there's no natural way to ask that question in English when the answer options are "1st", "2nd", and so forth?


----------



## london calling

meijin said:


> So, am I right in thinking that there's no natural way to ask that question in English when the answer options are "1st", "2nd", and so forth?


I can't think of one, no.


----------



## meijin

Thanks LC. I'll use the "How many..." version and convince my client then.


----------



## suzi br

suzi br said:


> I think the original version is awful.  I like your suggestion better.  I am not reading the link.  That's just my opinion based on this context.



I was numbering them in the order you presented them to us. You give us the one in position to be used that looks like “the original” and stuff in the text would appear to be suggestions. I missed the fact that you said you’d chosen NOT to use the other idea.


----------



## meijin

Ah, I see. Now it makes sense.


----------



## meijin

I've used the better version of the question below and also modified the answer options. [Edit: I made a mistake, so I edited the answer options]

Q. How many presidents were there in your company before the current president?

1. The current president is the first
2. The current president is the second
3. The current president is the third
4. The current president is the fourth
5. The current president is the fifth (or later)
6. No idea/don't remember

Although these answers don't really correspond to the question, they aren't (terribly) wrong either, don't they?
I had to ask this just in case my client wants the first answer option to be "first", the second answer option to be "second", and so forth.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

To get those answers starting with 'I', the question would have to be asked of the current 'president'.


----------



## london calling

So the person replying to your question is the current president of the company? If so your question doesn't work. You need ask: "How many presidents have there been in the company before the current president *you*?"


----------



## meijin

Sorry, I made a mistake. Will edit my last post.


----------



## meijin

Hermione Golightly said:


> the question would have to be asked of the current 'president'.


But the problem is there's no natural way to ask it in English.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Who is being asked?


----------



## london calling

meijin said:


> But the problem is there's no natural way to ask it in English.


No, the problem is that you have changed the meaning of the question: in your original sentence you were clearly not speaking to the current president.


----------



## meijin

london calling said:


> No, the problem is that you have changed the meaning of the question: in your original sentence you were clearly not speaking to the current president.


Have you read the updated answer options in #13?


----------



## heypresto

Referring back to my post #7, how about adding a reply option 'My company doesn't have a president.'?


----------



## london calling

meijin said:


> Have you read the updated answer options in #13?





meijin said:


> I've used the better version of the question below and also modified the answer options. [Edit: I made a mistake, so I edited the answer options]
> 
> Q. How many presidents were there in your company before the current president?
> 
> 1. The current president is the first
> 2. The current president is the second
> 3. The current president is the third
> 4. The current president is the fourth
> 5. The current president is the fifth (or later)
> 6. No idea/don't remember.


I would still say 'have there been' and not 'were', as I said above.


----------



## Scrawny goat

heypresto said:


> Referring back to my post #7, how about adding a reply option 'My company doesn't have a president.'?


It’s a translation, though. 

I think we can agree that, outside of Japan, where apparently all companies use the same word for the top executive, and where the culture notes such details as how many predecessors that person had in the role, the question is pretty meaningless. Many people would not understand the question and, if they did, many would not know the answer. 

Perhaps the translation is just to explain the questions to someone interpreting the answers, rather than preparing the questions to be answered in English. 

If not, the client will get lots of ‘don’t know’ answers and may learn to be more careful in designing the questions!


----------



## meijin

london calling said:


> I would still say 'have there been' and not 'were', as I said above.


Sorry, that part escaped my attention. "Have there been" is definitely better. 



heypresto said:


> Referring back to my post #7, how about adding a reply option 'My company doesn't have a president.'?


No worries. I won't use "president" in the actual questionnaire. I'm still looking for the best word (I started a thread about it but haven't had time to read it properly...)


So, if I change "were" to "have been" and replace "president" with a more appropriate word, I suppose it's fine?

Q. How many Xs have there been in your company before the current X?

1. The current X is the first
2. The current X is the second
3. The current X is the third
4. The current X is the fourth
5. The current X is the fifth (or later)
6. No idea/don't remember


----------



## london calling

Scrawny goat said:


> It’s a translation, though.
> 
> I think we can agree that, outside of Japan, where apparently all companies use the same word for the top executive, and where the culture notes such details as how many predecessors that person had in the role, the question is pretty meaningless. Many people would not understand the question and, if they did, many would not know the answer.
> 
> Perhaps the translation is just to explain the questions to someone interpreting the answers, rather than preparing the questions to be answered in English.
> 
> If not, the client will get lots of ‘don’t know’ answers and may learn to be more careful in designing the questions!


Meijin has opened another thread which s/he asks what we call the heads of SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises), which is what this question is about. I think it is clear that 'president' is the wrong word in English. Working for a large Japanese corporation as I do I have a fair amount of contact with my Japanese colleagues: this kind of thing comes up all the time.


----------



## meijin

In *the other thread* LC mentioned, I learned that I can just use "*head*" for anyone who is in charge of the company/organization and of the people in it (e.g. president, CEO, director). But the problem is that it won't work in the example in this thread. "How many *heads* have there been in your company before the current *head*?" (and responses "1. The current head is the first", "2. The current head is the second"...) sound terribly wrong to me. So, I think I'll use "*director*". But everyone who has replied to this thread is a BE speaker, so I don't know if a "director" means a head in US companies...


----------



## JulianStuart

I’ve not read this in detail recently but it may help 
42nd President of USA - how to ask a question with an ordinal answer.


----------



## meijin

Yes Julian, that's the same thread I pointed to in the original post. I read some of the posts there, but wanted to focus on heads of companies, not USA presidents.


----------



## Myridon

meijin said:


> Q. How many Xs have there been in your company before the current X?
> 
> 1. The current X is the first
> 2. The current X is the second
> 3. The current X is the third
> 4. The current X is the fourth
> 5. The current X is the fifth (or later)
> 6. No idea/don't remember


The answers to this question (How many?) should be simple numbers not the next ordinal.
1. 0
2. 1
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5 or more
6. No idea

In my opinion, the majority of employees will answer "No idea".  This is not something Americans would consider to be an important fact. While the ordinal number of the President of the US is mentioned in the press, I doubt most people have it memorized.  Somewhere in the low to mid 40's is my answer at the moment.


----------



## meijin

Well, you two live in the states, so maybe you can tell me if "*director*" also works in AmE (see post #26).




Myridon said:


> The answers to this question (How many?) should be simple numbers not the next ordinal.
> 1. 0
> 2. 1
> 3. 3
> 4. 4
> 5. 5 or more
> 6. No idea


Yes, I'll write that way and explain to my client why the English translations are different from the original Japanese.


----------



## JulianStuart

meijin said:


> Yes Julian, that's the same thread I pointed to in the original post. I read some of the posts there, but wanted to focus on heads of companies, not USA presidents.


I missed that link , but the grammar/syntax/logic doesn’t change the issue of the form of the question needed


----------



## heypresto

Many companies have a few directors, and some have a board of several directors. I think it's rare that there will only be one director. 

It may be different in the US?


----------



## meijin

So, as I predicted, "How many *heads* have there been in your company before the current *head*?" doesn't work, and I can't use "*directors*" either (in the UK).


----------



## JulianStuart

meijin said:


> I wondered about this. So thank you very much for mentioning it. I'll look for another word (obviously most of us Japanese use the same Japanese word for that position regardless of the size of the company).


There’s a little help here: CEO, President and Chairman


----------



## london calling

heypresto said:


> Many companies have a few directors, and some have a board of several directors. I think it's rare that there will only be one director.
> 
> It may be different in the US?


I think you should read Meijin's other thread. That is the problem: in the end 'heads' won.

heads of small and medium-sized companies

@Julian, I think you should read it too. CEOs, managing Directors etc. when talking about SMEs comes across as rather pompous, in my opinion.


----------



## Scrawny goat

meijin said:


> So, as I predicted, "How many *heads* have there been in your company before the current *head*?" doesn't work, and I can't use "*directors*" either (in the UK).


Why does ‘head’ not work? In my opinion it is your best option, although I would not say ‘heads in your company’, but probably: ‘Since it’s foundation, how many Heads has your company had?


----------



## JulianStuart

london calling said:


> I think you should read Meijin's other thread. That is the problem: in the end 'heads' won.heads of small and medium-sized companies


I can see why  , given the vagueness of “small” and “medium”  and “large” and all the various titles along the way in AE and BE.


----------



## meijin

Scrawny goat said:


> Why does ‘head’ not work? In my opinion it is your best option


Does it work? That's great news!  I couldn't tell it from the previous few posts. Also, I thought "head" was more like "person at the top", not a name of a position. So, to me, it seemed to be asking like "How many people at the top have there been in your company before the person who's currently at the top?", which I found odd.



Scrawny goat said:


> although I would not say ‘heads in your company’, but probably: ‘Since it’s foundation, how many Heads has your company had?


I see that you capitalized "*H*ead", which means it _is _a name of a position. Good to know. It's also good to know that "has your company had?" is better.

Actually, I've come up with the best way to ask it, considering the consistency between Japanese and English translations in the answer options.

Q. How many Heads, *including the current one*, has your company had?

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5 or more
6. No idea/don't remember

I hope this is perfect (in both AE and BE) and the problem is solved.


----------



## london calling

That works, but I bet they all say 'No idea/don't remember' (I certainly would!).


----------



## meijin

Thank you very much LC. Yes, I think so too, unless some of those SMEs are family businesses.


----------



## JulianStuart

meijin said:


> Does it work? That's great news!  I couldn't tell it from the previous few posts. Also, I thought "head" was more like "person at the top", not a name of a position.


It is the best translation of the concept (for which there seems to be a single Japanese word) - simply because it describes the person at the top, while English uses a wide range of “titles” or names of “positions”.  It does not mean that anyone is actually called “head” of the company but is the best word for your questionnaire


----------



## london calling

JulianStuart said:


> It is the best translation of the concept (for which there seems to be a single Japanese word) - simply because it describes the person at the top, while English uses a wide range of “titles” or names of “positions”.  It does not mean that anyone is actually called “head” of the company but is the best word for your questionnaire


Exactly. It translates the concept.


----------



## suzi br

london calling said:


> That works, but I bet they all say 'No idea/don't remember' (I certainly would!).



So would I. 

Is this q’aire going to be used in the UK?  I’d love to know the outcome of this one. If more than 5% know the answer to this I’d be amazed. Unless it’s a very steady family firm where one family member followed another in the job. 
Are you going to time-limit it, say, the last x years?  Are people supposed to fish back through the centuries?  
Crazy question, really.  I guess the person asking has a reason but it’s not easy to deduce it from here.


----------



## JulianStuart

suzi br said:


> So would I.
> 
> Is this q’aire going to be used in the UK?  I’d love to know the outcome of this one. If more than 5% know the answer to this I’d be amazed. Unless it’s a very steady family firm where one family member followed another in the job.
> Are you going to time-limit it, say, the last x years?  Are people supposed to fish back through the centuries?
> Crazy question, really.  I guess the person asking has a reason but it’s not easy to deduce it from here.


Many of the questions in Meijin's questionnaires seem more suited to the culture of their original language than in English-speaking cultures but the companies seem to want to have them translated - perhaps so English speakers can understand the Japanese culture based on the surveys already perfomed, rather than trying to run the questionnaires in e.g. UK US Canada Australia etc?  Meijin may be able to help with this...


----------



## meijin

JulianStuart said:


> simply because it describes the person at the top, while English uses a wide range of “titles” or names of “positions”. It does not mean that anyone is actually called “head” of the company


So, does this mean it's not really appropriate to capitalize "head" and write "How many *H*eads, including the current one, ...?" Or is it better to capitalize it because "How many *h*eads" would make respondents think of _our _heads (top part of the body)?


----------



## JulianStuart

Capitalizing it looks strange. How many people have been head of the company? How many people have headed the company?”?
(I agree with Suzi that this is a bizarre question!)


----------



## meijin

Thanks. Then I won't capitalize it.

(I agree it's a bizare question, but I only needed to know how to ask it in English. The best thing I learned in this thread is that the use of "president", "CEO", etc. isn't appropriate for small and medium-sized businesses in the UK).


----------



## dojibear

Note that *head* is an informal term used in conversation. It is never the official title. Most companies have one single person who runs the company on a day-to-day basis. All employees are "under" that person (report to him). He is called the *CEO* or *president* or both.

If you start a corporation in the U.S., you must name someone as the president. All U.S. corporations have a president, at least on paper. But large companies have several Chief Officers, include Executive (CEO), Financial (CFO) and others.

The CEO does not "own" the company. Neither does the president. They get a salary, not a share of the profits. The company is "owned" by (and shares profits with) the people who own shares of company stock, which may be a few people or millions of people. The company officers work on behalf of those "share-holders", and can be sued by them.

The highest authority in a corporation is not the CEO. It is the "Board of Directors". The CEO/president reports to the board, and obeys the orders and decisions made by the board. He runs the company day-by-day, but the board makes all important decisions. Often the CEO/president is a member of the board, but not always.


----------



## meijin

So, in the US, larger companies don't have a head? Or is the board of directors the head? Or is the CEO/president the head but it doesn't mean he/she is "at the top" because the board of directors is at the top (if the CEO/president isn't a member of the board)?


----------



## dojibear

It is not clear what "head" means. Sorry.


----------



## JulianStuart

dojibear said:


> It is not clear what "head" means. Sorry.


The OP was asking specifically only about


> The questionnaire is to be answered by employees in small and mid-sized companies.


While the corporation I worked for for many years had a board of directors, we all considered the CEO the “head” of the company. I don’t know whether companies in Japan operate with boards but I suspect so, and then you get into keiretsu and who’s in charge of how much of each company etc  I don’t know much about small and mid-sixed companies here and whether they have boards and so on, but the only word that works for the OP is the _conceptual_ head - the man at the top of day-to-day operations - as the best translation for the word used in the text he is translating.


----------



## meijin

JulianStuart said:


> The OP was asking specifically only about


Yes, that's true, but I think dojibear's answer was to my last post, which was about larger companies in the US.


----------



## JulianStuart

meijin said:


> Yes, that's true, but I think dojibear's answer was to my last post, which was about larger companies in the US.


I covered that, too, at least conceptually   The corportion I worked for was quite big and had a board and chairman of the board and everything but we still considered our CEO to be the “head”.


----------



## meijin

Ah yes, I read that part and learned that I can still call the CEO who's _below _the board of directors "head" (instead of "neck" or something ). Thanks for the info.


----------



## london calling

dojibear said:


> It is not clear what "head" means. Sorry.


Meijin is using 'heads' for a reason.

heads of small and medium-sized companies


----------

