How an accent affects perceptions of an employee’s competence

The same answer, a different impression

Two candidates describe a similar experience. One speaks with an accent familiar to the recruiter; the other pronounces some words differently and pauses longer. Afterward, someone says, ‘The first candidate sounded more professional.’ That statement is worth unpacking. Was the answer more precise? Did it have a better solution? Or did it simply sound more familiar and therefore require less effort from the listener? Unless that impression is examined, verbal fluency may be recorded as a difference in competence even though the evaluator was reacting to something else. Accent refers to patterns of pronunciation. It can signal a region, a social environment, or speaking a language other than one's first. It is not the same as poor grammar, a limited vocabulary, or unintelligibility. Of course, some tasks require a certain level of communication, but the requirement should relate to an actual job task: giving instructions, having a conversation or explaining risks. A preference for someone who ‘sounds like us’ requires separate justification and often says nothing about how well that person will perform the job. Separating content from speech is especially important when recruiting. A candidate may need time to formulate an answer while at the same time understanding the problem well and proposing an appropriate solution. If the reviewer equates verbal fluency with knowledge, it is easy to overlook the difference. That doesn't mean communication isn't important to the position. However, it is important to identify the skills that are really needed: explaining clearly, having a conversation with a client, or quickly agreeing on next steps in a particular language. Simply speaking without a noticeable accent does not demonstrate any of these competencies. A well-prepared assignment allows you to evaluate the job requirements rather than the general impression of familiarity and similarity with people already employed in the company.

What listeners infer from a voice

Hideg, Shen and Koval's review examines discrimination based on accent in the workplace. It points out that the way a person speaks can trigger social associations and shape how the speaker is perceived. Not everyone responds in the same way, and the meaning depends on the accent, the task, and the context. However, it is important to distinguish between the content of what is said and assumptions about the social group to which the listener assigns the speaker. Hideg et al., 2024. In practice, listeners may mistakenly attribute the extra effort required for comprehension to the speaker: ‘Because I have to work harder to follow this person, the message is less convincing.’ However, part of the difficulty comes from a lack of familiarity with the sound. So in an example of a recruitment interview, it's better to go back to the notes on solving a task rather than relying on an overall impression of fluency. The same goes for team meetings. A person who speaks quickly and freely does not necessarily offer a more accurate analysis than someone who needs extra seconds to formulate a thought.

Intelligibility matters, but it must be assessed fairly

The meta-analysis of Schulte and co-authors deals with selection biases related to language variations, including regional and migration-related. Such results justify checking how candidates are assessed, not assuming that any negative linguistic assessment is biased. The use of job-related criteria and comparable assessment conditions is key. Schulte et al., 2024. If a position requires instructions to be given to customers by telephone, a similar task can be prepared to check that the listener understands the message. The criterion should be effectiveness, not whether the candidate's pronunciation matches a preferred model. Content, structure, pace, and comprehensibility should be assessed separately. This makes feedback useful: ‘Shorter sentences and a summary of the decision’ provides something the person can act on, whereas ‘You need to lose your accent’ can create an unnecessary and inadequate condition. During group meetings, a fast-moving conversation can compound this disadvantage. A person who speaks more slowly is less likely to find an opening to contribute and is later assessed as inactive. The facilitator can help by taking a short break, making the material available in advance, and inviting the person to add to a specific point. However, the facilitator should not single the person out publicly as someone who needs special treatment. The goal is to draw on the knowledge the team needs, not to perform kindness. It is also worth checking the understanding between the two parties. If a statement is unclear, ask the speaker to repeat a specific passage or write down the shared understanding together. Pretending that everything is understood makes it harder to work and takes away the opportunity to explain the real communication difficulty.

How to avoid silencing people in everyday collaboration

In an international team, a misunderstanding can be clarified without embarrassing anyone: ‘I'm not sure I heard that correctly. Did you say Tuesday?’ Repeating someone else's statement for a joke or finishing each sentence for someone else can make that person less willing to speak up. It is also good to take care of the conditions: the quality of the call, fewer overlapping conversations, and the written summary of important decisions. These solutions are helpful to anyone, including those who are listening in a noisy environment or who are working in a language that they are just learning to use professionally. A person with an accent that is less typical of the group should not be constantly directed to the role of ‘cultural interpreter’ or excluded from client contact without a competence check. If a suggestion arises to change the scope of tasks, it is worth asking for specific examples and requirements. 'Clients prefer someone local' may hide an unverified assumption. The manager should distinguish between a real communication problem and an expected response from the listener that has never been verified.

Professionalism needs a better definition

It's worth checking the language of the ratings: ‘sounds confident’, ‘presents well’, ‘is a good fit for the client’. Such labels become useful only when they are tied to observable behavior. Did the person understand the customer's needs, ask the right questions, and clearly identify the next step? This enables the organization to improve communication without turning one way of speaking into a hidden prerequisite for promotion. The standard remains demanding, but it concerns work outcomes that can be observed and discussed honestly. When evaluating, it is worthwhile to return to examples of behavior. Instead of a note saying ‘communicates poorly’, it is possible to indicate whether the listener understood the instruction, whether the candidate answered the question and whether they were able to clarify the ambiguity. Such a record makes it easier to compare people according to the same criteria. It also helps to distinguish the problem of accent from difficulty structuring a message, knowledge of terminology, or subject-matter expertise. Not every difficulty has the same cause or requires the same support. If the work requires a certain level of communication, it should be checked under realistic conditions. The criterion should arise from the task and be known before the assessment, rather than arising only when one person's speech differs from the evaluator's habits.

An accent provides the listener with social signals, but it does not replace the assessment of competence. Fair practice distinguishes content, comprehensibility, and style and takes into account the listener's role in achieving mutual understanding. So the difference in how someone sounds does not have to become a difference in access to opportunity.

How Empatyzer supports more precise communication

Empatyzer can help prepare a conversation about communication difficulties without automatically linking them to the origin of the speaker. In Talk to Em about a specific person, the user can formulate a clarifying question or prepare feedback on a particular statement. A useful message describes what was misunderstood and how explaining would be helpful, rather than judging the person's accent as a personal failing. The Talk to Em about your team can help establish rules for confirming decisions, sharing materials, and taking turns. Available group profiles help to choose how to present these principles. Empatyzer does not evaluate pronunciation, does not measure language proficiency and does not replace a rigorous professional competence check. Its role involves preparing communication and reflecting on one's own interpretation of behavior. The participants themselves must determine whether they understand each other better and if the changes in the way meetings are run make it possible to use the knowledge of all contributors whose knowledge is needed.