Abstract
PurposeHigh-stakes decision-makers, including human resource (HR) professionals, often exhibit accent biases against second language speakers in professional evaluations. We extend this work by investigating how HR students evaluate simulated job interview performances in English by first and second language speakers of English.Design/methodology/approachEighty HR students from Calgary and Montreal evaluated the employability of first language (L1) Arabic, English, and Tagalog candidates applying for two positions (nurse, teacher) at four points in the interview (after reading the applicant’s resume, hearing their self-introduction, and listening to each of two responses to interview questions). Candidates’ responses additionally varied in the extent to which they meaningfully answered the interview questions.FindingsStudents from both cities provided similar evaluations, employability ratings were similar for both advertised positions, and high-quality responses elicited consistently high ratings while evaluations for low-quality responses declined over time. All speakers were evaluated similarly based on their resumes and self-introductions, regardless of their language background. However, evaluations diverged for interview responses, where L1 Arabic and Tagalog speakers were considered more employable than L1 English speakers. Importantly, students’ preference for L1 Arabic and Tagalog candidates over L1 English candidates was magnified when those candidates provided low-quality interview responses.Originality/valueResults suggest that even in the absence of dedicated equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) training focusing on language and accent bias, HR students may be aware of second language speakers’ potential disadvantages in the workplace, rewarding them in the current evaluations. Findings also highlight the potential influence of contextual factors on HR students’ decision-making.