A manager, a department head, and an HR colleague are meeting to evaluate a team lead’s performance. They agree that she performs well in most aspects of her role, but they're concerned about how little she contributes to the discussion during video calls with colleagues at other locations.

Those discussions take place in English. The team lead passed the company's English assessment three years ago, so no one considers it might be a language problem. Instead, they question her confidence and initiative. They’re doubtful she’s ready to take on more responsibility.

But they may not understand what her English score does and doesn’t mean. It may not show how well she can challenge a colleague, explain a risk, or voice a concern in English during a live meeting.

If one of your own employees rarely spoke up, how would you know whether it was from lack of initiative, a language-related difficulty, or both?

Why language gaps get missed

Once an employee passes a language proficiency test, the language question may seem settled. However, a passing score on a general proficiency test does not automatically mean that that employee will never struggle due to language.

Most proficiency tests are general assessments that may evaluate reading comprehension, grammar, listening, and speaking as separate skills. But proficiency in these skills is not necessarily the same thing as having the workplace fluency to integrate them on the job in real time, under pressure, when stakes are high.

A passing score does not guarantee the ability to handle a tough client negotiation or the confidence to voice disagreement in a regional meeting.

A 2023 study by Suzuki, Ando, and Nishikawa found that the exact language capabilities needed to perform well vary from job to job. This means two employees with the same proficiency score may not be equally well equipped to communicate in the course of their duties. It also means that promoting an employee can create a new language gap. An employee who performed well in one role may need different language skills to excel in the next.

After employees pass the language test, communication gaps often get missed or misinterpreted as other job performance problems.

What language gaps get called instead

A language gap can be misinterpreted in a number of ways. A team lead who remains silent on video calls is “not proactive.” A newly promoted manager who can’t hold the room “lacks executive presence.” An ambiguous handoff note is a sign of an analyst who “can’t make requirements clear.” A client-facing manager who doesn’t push back on scope is “too accommodating.”

In some cases, these judgments may be right. Research, however, suggests the same behaviors could be signs of hidden language gaps.

In a 2018 study on multinational teams, Li and colleagues showed that people who spoke up more tended to be seen as more capable, even when their actual task performance wasn’t better. The authors caution that this can lead to an unintended situation in multinational teams, where those who speak the company language better are viewed as more professionally competent, whether or not they actually are.

It’s not just a simple problem of proficiency level, either. A 2013 study by Tsedal Neeley looked at a company that adopted English as the language of cross-national communication. Neeley found that nonnative English speakers sometimes withdrew from discussions because they feared appearing incompetent or felt diminished when communicating in English.

One employee held back a concern about a software-licensing problem because he was anxious about explaining his reasoning in English; the issue later delayed the project by two weeks. Another employee, who was objectively rated as highly fluent, avoided criticizing an American colleague because he feared sounding “stupid” in English. He said he would have expressed the same criticism easily in his own language.

These fears were not neatly tied to proficiency levels. Even employees rated highly fluent by experts sometimes experienced anxiety and withdrew from discussions.

This is not to say that silence on video calls or failure to push back on scope is a sure sign of a language gap. They could truly be signs of poor initiative or overaccommodation. But when evaluating job performance, it is important to consider language as a possible factor at play, even for employees who have already passed the company’s language test.

One question that checks if language is a factor

There’s a simple way to check whether a performance issue is language related. Just ask this question:

Would this same moment have gone wrong if the person were doing it in their first language?

Consider a manager who says very little during a weekly call with headquarters. She rarely challenges an idea or redirects the discussion. It would be easy to conclude that she lacks leadership and isn’t ready to advance.

But suppose that every Tuesday she runs a meeting in her first language. There, she makes decisions, challenges assumptions, and keeps the discussion on track. If she demonstrates decisiveness and leadership skills that then disappear when she has to use a different language, the contrast is worth investigating. You may have uncovered a language gap.

The question is not a foolproof test. But it is a way to check whether an employee’s language skills might be a contributing factor. If the employee handles the same kind of situation effectively in their first language but struggles when working in the company language, a language gap may be contributing to the problem. If the same difficulty appears in both languages, the explanation is more likely to lie elsewhere.

Different roles, different language demands

Your organization may require passing a general language proficiency test, but not every job requires the exact same communication abilities. On-the-job language demands are role specific, and workplace language challenges depend on what the employee actually has to do.

A client-facing manager might communicate comfortably in routine conversations but struggle to respond when a customer pushes for something unrealistic. An analyst might speak confidently in meetings but have difficulty making a complex handoff precise enough for another team to act on.

Even an employee who has never shown signs of trouble communicating before can begin to struggle after moving into a new position, as each role has its own language demands. After a promotion, someone who communicated effectively as an individual contributor may suddenly need to challenge senior colleagues, deliver corrective feedback, or defend a decision in real time.

For HR and L&D, the table below provides a way to explore whether an apparent job performance issue might have a language component.

Instead of asking whether an employee is generally proficient in the company language, identify the specific communication moments that matter most in that person’s role. Then apply our question to that moment:

Would this have gone differently in the employee’s first language?

When language isn’t the problem

Of course, not every performance problem is language related. If the situation would likely have played out the same way in the employee’s first language, then the problem lies elsewhere.

A team lead who fails to escalate a risk may not have received the necessary information soon enough. If the missing information would have prevented him from escalating the risk regardless of which language he was working in, the issue is not a language gap. The remedy might be earlier access to the information or a clearer escalation process.

A client-facing manager who hesitates to push back on scope may not be sure whether she has the authority to reject the request. If that uncertainty would exist in any language, the problem is one of decision-making authority, not language. Clarifying who can make the call would address the actual barrier.

When a performance issue arises in a situation that requires an employee to communicate in a second language, one important question is whether language is contributing. Then, if language is ruled out as a contributing factor, it’s time to consider other explanations.

The goal of considering a possible language gap is not to try to blame language for every performance problem. It is to make sure language is not ruled out simply because the employee has already passed a language test.

When language is part of the problem

When language does appear to be contributing to a performance issue, the solution needs to be more focused than “this employee needs more language training.” Instead, work to identify the specific situations in which the employee is having difficulty and what they need to be able to do better in those situations.

The examples in the table show how training objectives can differ depending on the employee’s role. For a client-facing manager, that might mean practicing how to push back on scope during live calls or business reviews. For a team lead, the focus might be on the language needed to explain a risk clearly to senior colleagues or phrase corrective feedback appropriately.

Practice can be built around the types of situations the employee actually encounters. That might include having to respond quickly to an unexpected question or objection, choose appropriate language while under pressure, or adjust a response as the conversation develops. Repeated practice can help build both the language capability and the confidence to respond in the moment.

Focusing training on the language tasks related to an employee’s role also provides a clearer way for HR and L&D to assess progress. The question is not only whether the employee’s overall language skills are improving. It is whether they are becoming better able to handle the specific communication demands of their position.

Don’t rule language out by default

Consider again the team lead from the performance review at the beginning of this article. The reason she contributed little during video meetings with colleagues at other sites may genuinely be that she lacks initiative. But before her reviewers decide that, they need to ask whether the same pattern appears when she works in her first language. If it does not, her language skills deserve a closer look.

Many performance problems will turn out to have nothing to do with language, and checking how the employee handles the same situation in her first language will show that too. But when the work requires difficult communication in a second language, a proficiency test passed years ago doesn’t rule out the possibility.

Not sure if it’s a language gap or a performance problem? We help HR teams figure out what they’re looking at. Talk to us.

FAQ

What causes language barriers in the workplace?

Language barriers at work often come from the demands of real-time communication. Even employees who passed a language test can struggle with unfamiliar accents, fast speakers, specialized vocabulary, and video calls with no visual cues to follow. The nerves of being in a high-stakes conversation can also interfere with comprehension and speaking.

Can someone pass a language test and still struggle at work?

Yes. Communication tasks vary from role to role, but language tests are typically general assessments. They don’t measure how well someone handles the specific language tasks their position requires. Handling fast-paced negotiations and delivering corrective feedback both require language proficiency, for instance, but they don’t require exactly the same communication skills.

How do I know if it's a language problem or a performance problem?

Ask one question: Would the employee have the same problem if they were using their first language? A manager who is silent in the weekly call with headquarters but speaks up at meetings in her own language may have a language problem. If she’s silent even in meetings in her own language, it’s more likely a performance issue.

What's the difference between language proficiency and fluency?

Proficiency is a general level of language skill, usually measured by a test of abilities like grammar, reading, listening, and speaking. Workplace fluency is the ability to put those skills to use in real situations on the job, such as leading a meeting or delivering bad news well. Someone can have the first without the second.

How do I measure the business impact of a language gap?

Look at the specific communication moments where the gap shows up, such as escalating a risk or handing off work, and track what happens when they go badly. Delayed projects, stalled decisions, lost deals, and hours spent on rework can all be measured and compared over time. For a starting point, our Fluency Gap Calculator offers a quick company-wide estimate.

Do language gaps only affect teams working in English?

No. Most research on workplace language gaps focuses on English, the most common corporate language. But gaps can arise in any language a team works in. For instance, a Brazilian manager may avoid voicing disagreement on a call with headquarters in Paris because debating in French is hard for him, or because he’s embarrassed about his pronunciation.

Isn't this just a culture problem, not a language problem?

Sometimes it is. Teams from different cultures may read directness, silence, and disagreement differently. That can happen even when everyone has strong language skills. But just assuming problems are cultural can lead you to overlook language gaps. If you wonder whether an employee’s silence in cross-regional meetings is culturally based, observe them at a meeting in their first language. If they speak up there, it’s possible their silence is due to a language gap.