In the evolving landscape of workplace inclusion, some biases remain stubbornly hidden in plain sight, or rather, in plain sound. One of the most pervasive yet least-addressed forms of prejudice is accent bias. To unpack this complex issue, we’re joined by Sofia Khaira, a leading specialist in diversity, equity, and inclusion. With her expertise in talent management, Sofia helps organizations dismantle the subtle barriers that prevent true equity. Today, we’ll explore the real-world impact of accent bias, from the emotional toll on employees to its drag on career progression. We will also delve into practical, actionable strategies for HR leaders and managers, discussing how to move beyond awareness to create systems that challenge ingrained stereotypes and redefine what it truly means to be ‘professional’.
Research shows over a third of people with regional accents feel judged at work, with many softening their accent to sound ‘more professional’. What specific challenges does this create for team dynamics, and how can leaders foster a more inclusive environment? Please share a concrete example.
When you have a significant portion of your team—and the research shows it’s over a third—feeling judged simply for how they speak, it creates a deep-seated climate of fear. This isn’t just about hurt feelings; it erodes the psychological safety necessary for innovation and collaboration. When an employee dedicates mental energy to softening their accent, as 31% report doing, they are actively self-censoring. Their focus shifts from contributing their best ideas to policing their own voice. Imagine a critical brainstorming session where a brilliant team member from a regional area hesitates to speak up, worried that the delivery of their idea will be scrutinized more than the idea itself. That hesitation, born from a fear of judgment, can mean the difference between a breakthrough and a missed opportunity. Leaders must actively model inclusivity by celebrating different communication styles and explicitly stating that all voices are valued for their substance, not their sound.
Nearly one in five people believe their accent has hindered their career progression, suggesting they are often overlooked for senior roles. Can you describe the subtle ways this bias manifests in promotion discussions and what metrics companies can use to track and address this inequity?
This is a critical point because the bias is rarely overt. You won’t often hear someone say, “We can’t promote them because of their accent.” Instead, it manifests in coded language. During promotion discussions, you might hear vague feedback like a candidate “lacks executive presence” or isn’t “polished enough” for a senior-facing role. These subjective assessments are often unconscious proxies for accent bias, equating a standard, often southern English, accent with competence and leadership. It’s a devastating cycle, as we see that 19% of people feel their careers have been directly held back by this. To address it, companies must get serious about data. They should track promotion rates and talent pipeline progression, cross-referencing them with voluntarily disclosed demographic data, including regional background. Furthermore, HR can analyze the language used in performance reviews and promotion justifications. If words like “polish” or “presence” consistently appear as barriers for employees with regional accents, it’s a massive red flag that your definition of leadership is too narrow and biased.
Some employees report that hiring managers have mimicked their accent, while others experience ‘accent anxiety’ that silences them in meetings. What immediate, practical steps should an HR department take upon learning of such incidents? Please walk me through a step-by-step response plan.
Hearing that a hiring manager mimicked a candidate’s accent—an experience reported by one in seven people with a regional dialect—is an appalling breach of professional conduct that requires immediate and decisive action. The first step is to create a safe space for the individual who reported it. Listen to their experience without judgment, assure them they are being taken seriously, and outline the confidential process that will follow. The second step is a prompt and thorough investigation into the complaint. This must be handled with sensitivity but also with rigor. Third, if the allegation is substantiated, there must be clear consequences for the manager, ranging from mandatory intensive training to formal disciplinary action. Simply brushing it off is not an option. Finally, this incident must become a catalyst for systemic change. This is the moment to roll out mandatory, company-wide training on unconscious bias, with a specific, hard-hitting module on accent bias for all hiring managers. This isn’t just about one incident; it’s about preventing the “accent anxiety” that silences 16% of our colleagues from ever taking root.
The idea of using staff podcasts or network events to create safe spaces is powerful. Beyond just showcasing diverse voices, how can these platforms be structured to actively dismantle stereotypes about accents and job capability? Please share a specific anecdote or successful strategy you have seen.
These platforms are incredibly effective, but their design is key. It’s not enough to just pass the microphone to someone with a regional accent. To actively dismantle stereotypes, you must intentionally connect their voice to their expertise and authority. For instance, I’ve seen a company launch a staff podcast series where each episode featured a senior leader sharing a major career success story. They deliberately chose leaders with a wide range of regional accents. The focus was on their strategic thinking and achievements, but the underlying message was powerful: a strong accent is the sound of leadership here. At one employee network event, a Chief Technology Officer with a very distinct regional accent opened his keynote by sharing a story of being told early in his career that he’d “never be client-facing.” He then spent thirty minutes brilliantly deconstructing a complex technical strategy. The room was electric. By platforming diverse speakers and allowing them to share their stories of overcoming this exact bias, you don’t just build awareness; you build a new set of role models and actively rewrite the corporate script on what success sounds like.
You’ve noted the effectiveness of ‘recruitment priming’ to reduce stereotyping. What does this look like in practice before an interview begins, and how can its impact be measured to ensure it leads to fairer hiring outcomes? I’m interested in the specific materials and process.
Recruitment priming is a simple but highly effective intervention that happens right before an interview. In practice, it involves having the entire hiring panel engage with a short piece of awareness-raising material. This could be a one-page document they read or a two-minute video they watch just before the first candidate comes in. The material would present key data, for instance, that 32% of people feel assumptions are made about their capability based on their accent. It would then explicitly remind the interviewers of the company’s commitment to fair evaluation based on skills and experience, not on speaking style, and provide examples of biased thinking to actively avoid. The impact can be measured quantitatively. You can track hiring outcomes before and after implementing the priming process. Are you seeing a more diverse pool of candidates successfully passing the interview stage? Are candidates from underrepresented regions being hired at a more equitable rate? This provides concrete data to prove that a small, deliberate intervention can produce a significantly fairer and more effective hiring process.
A key solution involves challenging the traditional definition of ‘professionalism’ and ‘executive presence.’ What alternative definitions should organizations adopt, and how can leaders be trained to interrogate their own instincts when their language equates a certain ‘polish’ with competence?
This is the heart of the matter. For too long, “professionalism” and “executive presence” have been used as coded terms that enforce a very narrow, assimilationist standard. Organizations need to formally redefine these concepts in their competency frameworks. An alternative definition of “executive presence,” for example, should focus on clarity of thought, the ability to inspire a team, strategic impact, and authentic communication—not on a specific accent or “polish.” Training is crucial here. Leaders need to be guided through exercises where they interrogate their own gut reactions. We can present them with two identical pitches delivered in different accents and facilitate a discussion about their unconscious responses. The goal is to train leaders to pause and ask themselves: “Am I reacting to the quality of this idea, or am I being influenced by the packaging it came in?” It’s about shifting the focus from assimilation, where we ask people to neutralize themselves, to genuine inclusion, where we recognize that difference—in thought, experience, and even voice—is a true competitive advantage.
Do you have any advice for our readers?
My advice is to become an active listener and a conscious ally. Pay attention in your next meeting: who speaks the most, and who remains silent? If you notice a colleague with a regional accent being interrupted or their ideas being overlooked, find a way to amplify their voice. You can say, “I’d like to go back to what Sarah said, I think that was a really important point.” For leaders, explicitly state that you value all communication styles and judge contributions on their merit alone. For individuals who feel self-conscious about their accent, please know that your voice is your strength and your perspective is unique and valuable. True inclusion is not about changing who you are to fit in; it’s about creating an environment where you are valued for who you are.
