"Credibility" (With An Accent)

When it comes to talent reviews, having a native-speaking boss pays off

Just not convincing enough

Through the talent review process, managers are expected to make a case to back-up their views on employees’ performance and potential. As discussions progress, the group challenges the presenting managers to ensure a consistent standard is upheld.

If the case is good and the manager is convincing, the initial assessment is endorsed by the group. But what if the case is good but the manager is not convincing?

Recent research looked at the impact of accent on credibility. In a set of experiments, “American participants were asked to judge the truthfulness of trivia statements by native or non-native speakers of English, such as, ‘A giraffe can go without water longer than a camel can.’” Prejudice was controlled for by telling participants the statements had been prepared for the participants (i.e. they were “not based on the speaker’s own knowledge”).

“On a truthfulness scale prepared for the experiment, the participants gave native speakers a score of 7.5, people with mild accents a score of 6.95 and people with heavy accents a score of 6.84.” (see also here).

As discussed in a previous post, it seems that in processes where one’s merits are presented by others, it pays off for that person to be a native speaker. That is, of course, provided the person has a positive view of our abilities.