The purpose of this research was to test the glass ceiling effect and discrimination against nonnative accent speakers when making hiring or capital funding decisions. For the purpose of this study, the researchers tested the hypothesis that nonnative accent speakers have insufficient political skill to be successful. 

Study 1: Managerial Hiring Study 
179 American university students were asked to rate candidates for a managerial position by listening to audio tapes of American, Japanese or Russian accents. Raters filled out a 38-item questionnaire and in which they assessed whether or not they would recommend hiring the candidate for the middle-management job.

Study 2 was a field experiment using actual entrepreneurs vying for funding in top-ranked U.S. pitch competitions. 60 executive MBA students who had taken at least one entrepreneurship course assessed the entrepreneurs' accents, skills, and attractiveness after watching three videos each. 

Results: In both studies, speakers of native (American) English received significantly higher recommendations for either managerial positions or entrepreneurial funding than did the speakers whose nonnative accents signaled their foreign birth. Nonnative accent, not race, best explained executive hiring recommendations and new venture funding. The bias can be explained by perceptions that nonnative speakers have weaker political skill. The alternative measures of race, communication skill, and collaborative skill failed to explain the effects of accent on hiring or funding recommendations. 

This benchmark study provides important insight into talent assessment efforts in large organizations with strong talent management and leadership development functions. The goal was to identify best practices in the use of formal assessments with high-potentials and senior executives. The study explored the purpose of assessments, methodologies, scope and ownership models, and types of resources used to support initiatives.  

 

After a discussion of the main assessments in use, the authors make a case for the adoption of multiple methods to overcome the limitations of any one assessment. They review previous industry studies on assessment practices for identifying talent and conclude that while identifying high-potential talent is acknowledged to be critical, some organizations lack a formal process and rely on "ungrounded methods".   

 

Study Participants 

Individuals from 84 companies participated out of 95 invited (yielding an 88% response rate). The organizations represented in the sample were large, multinational or global companies with a reputation for their talent management and leadership development efforts. Most were recognized by the Aon/Hewitt ranking of "Top Companies for Leaders" published in Fortune.

 

Results

• Use of Assessments: Over two-thirds (70.2%) reported having formal standardized assessments initiatives in place today.  
• Target Population for Assessments: The most frequent targets were senior executives (90%), middle managers (81%), and high-potentials (75%). The emphasis on mid level assessment signals a strong interest in building succession bench strength. 
• Purpose of Assessment: Assessment for addressing development needs was by far the most commonly cited purpose for both high potentials and senior executives. Assessments fulfill a dual role as they are being used for development and decision-making purposes. (See chart below). 

• Assessment Methods: The top three methods in order of popularity are multisource or 360-degree feedback (66% and 60% for high-potential and executives respectively); personality inventories (66% and 57%), and one-on-one interviews with candidates (59% and 57% respectively). 
• Multiple Assessment Use: 82% of organizations use more than a single method of assessment with high-potentials and 74% used two or more methods with senior executives.   
• Scope & Ownership of Assessments: Respondents were asked if their assessment processes were global, regional, or local in scope. Results suggest a significant trend toward a global focus in the assessment process for both high-potentials at 63% and senior executives at 78%. 

  

Web Link - Requires Paid Subscription