Language ideologies in elite job interviews

Abstract

According to Pierre Bourdieu, the privileged speak in a way that is preferentially assessed as they “intuitively grasp the rules that are immanent in a situation” (Bourdieu, 1993). In the “new” global economy, Heller says, language is “both a means of production and … a product itself” (Heller 2005). This results in job seekers’ “'communication skills’ [being used] as a gatekeeping device in recruitment” (Cameron 2000). Previous research on interviewing in intercultural contexts has focused largely on the role of language at the lower end of the pay, English proficiency and education scales (Gumperz 1992, Campbell and Roberts 2007). This paper examines what is happening at the high end of these scales. Compared to graduates from highly ranked overseas universities, graduates of Hong Kong universities find it more difficult to obtain the most highly sought-after, highly compensated internships and entry level positions. This paper examines possible causes of this apparent inequality through the lens of the hiring institutions’ linguistic ideologies. The data comprises six decision makers’ assessments of Hong Kong university students’ mock job interview videos for •front office positions at bulge bracket investment banks •management consulting firms •big 4 audit firms •companies with highly sought after management trainee programs. The decision makers’ comments explain what they did and did not “like” about each candidate’s answers, what they interpreted the candidate’s answers to “mean” about the student’s character and competencies, and more generally what they were searching for in new hires. At times, based on the students’ speaking styles, the decision makers volunteered such group attributes as “mainland students” or “Hong Kong university students”, typical of Irvine and Gal’s (2000) “iconization” process. Most international companies publicize an employment policy of diversity and inclusiveness. Yet, my data demonstrates a preference of the Anglo-American decision makers for a more homogenized communication habitus that exhibit their “hierarchies of linguistic value” (Jaffe 2009). This results in a tension between the stated (linguistic) ideology of diversity and inclusiveness and a clearly standardizing ideology in the decision makers’ metadiscursive comments on the candidates’ verbal performances. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. Sociology in Question. London: Sage. Cameron, Deborah. 2000. Good to Talk? Living and working in a communication culture. London: Sage. Campbell, Sarah and Celia Roberts. 2007. Migration, ethnicity and competing discourses in the job interview: Synthesizing the institutional and personal. Discourse & Society 18/3: 243–271. Gumperz, John J. 1992. Interviewing in intercultural situations. In Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds.) Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 302–327. Heller, Monica. 2005. Language, skill and authenticity in the globalized new economy. In Noves SL, Issue 2. Irvine, Judith and Gal, Susan. 2009. Language-ideological processes. In Coupland, Nikolas and Jaworski, Adam (ed.) The New Sociolinguistics Reader. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 374-379. Jaffe, Alexandra. 2009. The Production and Reproduction of Language Ideologies in Practice. In Coupland, Nikolas and Jaworski, Adam (ed.) The New Sociolinguistics Reader. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 390-403.