Linguistic penalty in the job interview

Success levels of different candidate groups in job interviews for low-skilled jobs (Source: Roberts 2013, p. 89)

Success levels of different candidate groups in job interviews for low-skilled jobs (Source: Roberts 2013, p. 89)

A common explanation for the un- and underemployment of migrants is that their English is not good enough. Despite the overuse of this explanation, we do, in fact, not have a particularly clear idea what “good English” for a particular job might mean. In some cases, the proficiency expectations placed on job candidates are clearly out of step with the language requirements of a particular job, as I have shown before. So, when it comes to migrants’ access to the job market, English language proficiency is both over-used as explanation and under-specified as to what the actual requirements might be.

New research by Celia Roberts (2013) goes some way to fill this gap. The researcher and her associates recorded job interviews in Britain for low-skilled (and low-paid) work such as stacking shelves, packing factory products or delivering parcels. For this kind of work employers hold “assessment days” and interview large numbers of people with a view to taking on most of those who have applied. Around 70% of white and non-white British-born applicants are hired for these jobs (see Figure; ‘EM’ stands for ‘ethnic minority’). However, for applicants born abroad, the picture looks radically different: despite the fact that they are more qualified, less than half are hired.

What is going on here? Surely, language proficiency is almost completely irrelevant to being able to stack shelves, package products or deliver parcels?

I have previously argued that discrimination on the basis of language proficiency can serve as a proxy for racial discrimination but, in the present context, this explanation doesn’t make sense, either: if racist structures were to blame, they would presumably funnel migrants into low-skilled low-paid work rather than exclude them from that particular segment of the labour market. So, what is going on?

To begin with, Roberts (2013) explains that interviewers are guided by principles of equal opportunities and diversity management, and are perfectly aware that a good command of English is irrelevant to stacking shelves and similar monotonous and repetitive jobs.

What they are looking for is evidence that applicants will be able to cope with repetition, monotony and boredom, and evidence that they are reflexive flexible individuals who will be capable of managing their own boredom. How can you demonstrate that? By telling a good story! Candidates were expected to tell a vivid story of how they had worked in a boring job before and, ideally, inject a bit of humour. For instance, one candidate, who the interviewers really liked, told the panel about how he had once painted the “giant walls” of a warehouse in one colour for three weeks. He closed by joking that painting the ceiling in a different colour was “a bit of pleasure” because it broke the routine.

In another example a successful candidate reflected on how he had coped previously when working a job consisting of “complete mind numbingly same repetitive stuff” by reflecting on how he would not “turn your brain on” and chat with co-workers while drilling and gluing a little piece of equipment onto another piece of equipment.

Both these (white British-born) successful candidates drew on the well-known Labovian structure for Anglo narratives (abstract, orientation, complicating action, resolution, evaluation, coda). As it so happens, this structure coincides with the structure of the evaluation form the interviewers have to fill in. That form is organized in a “STAR structure” where they are asked to record the candidate’s responses to Situation, Task, Action, and Result. Thus, “the normative Anglo narrative and the institution’s bureaucratic assessment form map on to each other precisely” (Roberts, 2013, p. 87).

Candidates who produced stories about coping with monotonous work and who were able to reflect on the experience in order to project a credible, competent and flexible personality did well during the interview, and interviews could become quite informal and friendly. This opened further spaces for the candidate to present themselves as having “the right kind of personality.”

By contrast, migrants often didn’t know what to make of questions such as “what would you tell me is the advantage of a repetitive job?” When they failed to produce an extended response, the interview usually became much more difficult: the interviewers became more controlling of the candidate’s talk and turns; there was more negativity and interviewers became less helpful and sympathetic; and the interviewers aligned more with formal participation roles and the interview became more formal and more institutionalized. Such conduct was a response to the candidate’s failure to produce the expected kind of discourse, but, crucially, it also served to make the interview much more difficult for them.

In sum, migrant candidates did fail because of language. However, it was not their accent, or their grammar, or their ability to produce “Standard English.” What mattered was the ability to “play a language game:” to tell a story that would project the candidate as the kind of person who was not only willing to do monotonous work but who was also sufficiently self-organized and self-aware to reflect on how they would manage the boredom inherent in such jobs.

The selection interview requires both bureaucratically processible talk and a vivid social performance, subtly blended together to produce a credible and persuasive self which aligns with the ideal worker in the new capitalist workplace. Small interactional differences and difficulties feed into larger scale judgements and institutional orders which, in turn, press down on individual decision making. (Roberts, 2013, p. 91f.)

The production of such a hybrid discourse is not easily practiced, particularly for those who are unemployed or employed in an ethnic job market. While the applicant’s competence and personality is assessed on the basis of how they talk, the linguistic and cultural nature of the assessment remains, in fact, unacknowledged and invisible. Roberts, Celia (2013). The Gatekeeping of Babel: Job Interviews and the Linguistic Penalty A. Duchêne, M. Moyer & C. Roberts (Eds.), Language, Migration and Social Inequalities: A Critical Sociolinguistic Perspective on Institutions and Work. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 81-94

Author Ingrid Piller

Dr Ingrid Piller is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Ingrid’s research expertise is in the fields of intercultural communication, bilingual education and the sociolinguistics of language learning and multilingualism in the contexts of migration and globalization.

More posts by Ingrid Piller
  • Alex Ballantyne

    What about language as an indicator of cognitive processes? What about cultural differences that are exposed by language? It makes sense that we would want to work or interact in non-social (shopping, medical treatment, travelling as opposed to meeting some one for a drink) with someone who is close to our individual norms in terms of language use. This applies equally when recruiting staff for mundane jobs – as a Scot I would find it easier to have staff who could understand me saying ‘aw n pit a muckle load o beans oan the tap shelf’ than having to modify my tongue to achieve some lingua franca. Having worked in multinational environments where English was the official language but where 90% of staff were L2 users I can evidence how much easier it is to work with other Scots. This is not racism it is pragmatic. I would imagine that all cultures/nationalities would have similar views – even if they were a bit fearful of stating them.

  • I think the basic issue is whether the interviewee is able to formulate his thoughts and ideas using an acceptable medium. From this it follows that migrant interviewees may not be able to compete well not because they are not able to use acceptable English. One of the reasons for this may their way of thinking – because they come from a variant culture – may be different and hence not in tune with the dominant way of thinking in their new environment.

  • Pingback: Sometimes Getting Along Comes Down To How You Say 'Gravy' - Owaisi Brothers()

  • Pingback: Sometimes Getting Along Comes Down To How You Say ‘Gravy’()

  • Pingback: Gravy? | OISE Cambridge()

  • Khan

    “Structured inequalities!”. In the game of cricket, the format of the game whether it is 20 or 40 overs or whether it is one day or a five day match determine the performance of the players and the team to a great extent. It has been seen that teams and players’ performance are largely determined by the format of the game also apart from other variables .The point I want to make here is not a brand new one i.e. “FORMAT” is very important. But the question is who gets involved in the formation of the format, determine its rules and regulations and who has the power to implement it? I think it will be naive to spot ethnicity and cultural background in this case because apparently it is International Association of Cricket, that formulate such rules and regulations about the format. But to assume this association as neutral would be risky especially in the web of multinational companies with their high stakes in the game. So in many ways, the format and its rules are shown to have been made by the Association but in fact they are made outside the Association.

    Back to the blog- post, in order to challenge the structured inequality we should challenge/question the thought/bent of mind that give rise to texts that constrain the creation of level-playing field.



    Graduate School of Education

    University of Pennsylvania.