University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Nonnative English speakers negotiating small talk in high technology workplaces

(USC Thesis Other)

Nonnative English speakers negotiating small talk in high technology workplaces

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Nonnative English Speakers Negotiating Small Talk in High Technology Workplaces
Eleanor Marie Arabia
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2025

© Copyright by Eleanor Marie Arabia 2025
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Eleanor Marie Arabia certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Nooshan Ashtari
Stephanie Dewing
Monique Datta, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2025

iv
Abstract
This study examines how nonnative English speakers navigate small talk within Silicon Valley's
high technology sector, highlighting the linguistic, cultural, and structural challenges they face.
The research investigates three main questions: the experiences of the employees during informal
conversations, the obstacles they encounter, and the impact on their ability to cultivate social
capital at work. Eleven individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds participated
in semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis of the findings revealed that linguistic
insecurities, cultural unfamiliarity, and workplace demands hinder participation in small talk,
creating barriers to social belonging and professional integration. The study suggests that
supportive leadership and well-planned organizational processes can mitigate these challenges.
Furthermore, employing inclusive communication strategies enhances employee connections and
boosts productivity. Participants emphasized the crucial role of leadership in fostering
opportunities for casual conversation, as well as the detrimental effects of remote or hybrid work
models on informal communications. The findings stress the importance of addressing biases,
building culturally sensitive workplaces, and creating environments where all employees can
thrive socially and professionally. Recommendations include targeted communication training,
leadership development, and the adoption of inclusive policies and practices. Future research is
needed to explore these dynamics across various industries and evaluate the effectiveness of the
proposed interventions. This study contributes to the understanding of the interplay between
language, culture, and workplace dynamics, offering practical solutions for fostering inclusive
and collaborative environments.
Keywords: small talk, nonnative English speakers, workplace social capital, inclusion, Silicon
Valley, high technology

v
Dedication
To my husband Carmine, for your love, strength, and unwavering support.

vi
Acknowledgments
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support, guidance, and
encouragement of many individuals to whom I am deeply grateful.
First and foremost, I extend my sincerest gratitude to my Chair, Dr. Monique Datta, for her
expert guidance, insightful feedback, and support throughout this journey. I also wish to
acknowledge my former Chair, Dr. Emmy Min, for setting a strong foundation for my research.
To my esteemed committee members, Dr. Nooshan Ashtari and Dr. Stephanie Dewing, thank you
for your thoughtful critiques, valuable insights, and unwavering commitment to excellence, which
have enhanced this dissertation.
To my fellow students in Cohort 14 and the subsequent cohorts who welcomed me, the
camaraderie, shared experiences, and encouragement were a source of motivation and strength. I
am also immensely grateful to the study participants who generously took time out of their
demanding schedules to share their perspectives and insights, which are the cornerstone of this
research.
Finally, to my husband, my daughters Katherine and Rebecca, and my dear friends—your
love, encouragement, and support throughout this journey have meant everything to me.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Context and Background of the Problem............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions.................................................................. 3
Importance of the Study...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 4
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 6
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................... 9
Silicon Valley High Technology Workplaces .................................................................... 9
Nonnative English Speakers Working in the United States.............................................. 18
Social Conversations in the Workplace ............................................................................ 23
Synthesis of the Literature ................................................................................................ 41
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 42
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 45
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 45
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 45
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 46
Positionality ...................................................................................................................... 48

viii
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 49
Participants........................................................................................................................ 49
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 52
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 53
Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................................................. 55
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 56
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 57
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 59
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 60
Participants........................................................................................................................ 60
Findings Research Question 1 .......................................................................................... 61
Findings Research Question 2 .......................................................................................... 69
Findings Research Question 3 .......................................................................................... 77
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 82
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 84
Discussion of Findings...................................................................................................... 84
Recommendations............................................................................................................. 90
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 94
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 96
Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 97
References..................................................................................................................................... 99
Appendix A: Study Invitation..................................................................................................... 123
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form ...................................................................................... 1130
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 129

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: New or Extended H-1B Visa Approvals for Silicon Valley Companies in 2023 22
Table 2: Demographic Information of Participants 69

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 52

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Small talk, although typically thought of as informal and trivial exchanges with others
(Coupland, 2003; Holmes, 2000c), is an important type of exchange that occurs between
individuals, whether familiar or unfamiliar, and which serves important personal and social
objectives (Coupland, 2003). For example, small talk in the workplace promotes a sense of
solidarity, signals belonging, establishes and maintains relationships, enhances reputation, and
supports career advancement. Small talk also contributes to the effectiveness and productivity of
an organization as a whole. In other words, effectively engaging in small talk allows for the
creation and maintenance of social capital, or the positive benefits that accrue from employee
connections, in the workplace. This workplace social capital is essential for individuals and for
the organization. Various studies have emphasized the criticality of communicative competence
in the workplace, given the centrality of relationships to effective job performance (Charles,
2008).
While various workers may struggle to effectively use small talk in work settings, the
population of nonnative English-speaking professionals face particular challenges. These
challenges include biases of and discrimination by native English speakers, difficulties with
comprehension and expression, communication apprehension, feelings of inferiority and loss of
status, lack of background and cultural knowledge, and lack of knowledge of the rules of small
talk. As a result, nonnative English speakers’ patterns of engagement in workplace small talk
include avoidance, remaining silent, speaking very little, and speech characterized by hesitations
and self-corrections (Pullin, 2010). These issues are particularly evident in Silicon Valley high
technology work environments, where a large proportion of the workforce is foreign born and
speaks English as an additional language (Baron, 2018).

2
Researchers have noted that although English has generally been adopted as the official
language of corporate communication, English places significant demands on speakers to assure
mutual understanding (Charles, 2007; Firth, 2008; Rogerson-Revell, 2008; Vollstedt, 2002).
Further complicating the situation is the lack of communication skills training, especially
concerning small talk (Carnavale et al., 1990; Crossling & Ward, 2002; Guirdham, 1999;
Palermo, 2002; Zorn & Violanti, 1996). Lancereau-Forster and Martinez (2011) noted that use of
foreign languages can increase work-related stress. This study examines the experiences of
nonnative English speakers navigating workplace small talk within Silicon Valley's high
technology sector, highlighting their unique challenges and strategies and their attempts to build
social capital and develop a sense of belonging.
Context and Background of the Problem
The participants in this study are nonnative English language speakers drawn from across
technology companies in Silicon Valley. The sample will be typical, in other words,
representative of the average technology industry employee for whom English is an additional
language. Nonnative English-speaking professionals face a number of barriers to engaging in
small talk with their colleagues in high technology workplaces in Silicon Valley. These include
the biases of and discrimination by native English speakers (Hatzidaki et al., 2015), difficulties
with comprehension and expression, communication apprehension (Wilson & Spaulding, 2010),
feelings of inferiority and loss of status (Lancereau-Forster & Martinez, 2011), lack of
background and cultural knowledge (Holmes, 2000c), and lack of knowledge of the rules of
small talk (Chen, 1993; Holmes, 2000c; Ylanne-McEwen, 1993). Based on my professional
work as a speech-language pathologist and Executive Language Coach to persons employed by

3
various technology companies in Silicon Valley, this problem is evident from the self-report of
my clients, their requests to learn how to make small talk, and my own informal observations.
Many current strategies available adopt an ethnocentric view of accented speech or
culturally based communication differences that focus on trying to “fix” the nonnative English
speaker. There are certainly benefits for nonnative speakers to focus on improving the overall
intelligibility of their spoken English and address informal conversation skills. However, the
work environment also needs to be addressed, including the attitudes and beliefs of native
English speakers, given findings from studies that have revealed the existence of bias in hiring
and promotion decisions based on candidates’ accents (Deprez‐Sims & Morris, 2010; Dewaele &
McCloskey, 2015; Hansen et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2016, Nguyen, 2010; Sliwa & Johansson,
2014). Fostering an inclusive workplace requires a balanced approach that empowers nonnative
speakers to improve their communication skills and addresses the biases of native speakers.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of nonnative English speakers
negotiating unscripted social conversations in high tech workplaces and their impact on the
ability to build workplace social capital. Three research questions will be examined:
1. What are the experiences of nonnative English speakers making small talk in high
tech workplaces?
2. What are the barriers to nonnative English speakers making small talk in high tech
workplaces?
3. How, and in what ways, do experiences with informal communication (small talk) in
the workplace affect nonnative English language speakers’ ability to build social
capital?

4
Importance of the Study
Nonnative English-speaking professionals face a number of barriers to engaging in small
talk with their colleagues in high tech workplaces in Silicon Valley. This study aims to describe
their experiences navigating these informal social situations in the workplace to better
understand the concerns and barriers they face. Small talk in the workplace serves a number of
important functions, including politeness, facilitating transitions, signaling belonging, smoothing
tensions, and establishing and maintaining solidarity and rapport (Brown & Levinson, 1987;
Coupland, 2000; Coupland et al., 1992, 1994; Eggins & Slade, 1997; Laver, 1975; Schneider,
1988; Tannen, 1989). If social interactions are difficult for nonnative English speakers, they will
have difficulty building and sustaining workplace social capital and are at a disadvantage
compared to their native English speaking colleagues in this regard. This study will identify the
implications of this for the individual and the organization as a whole and recommend strategies
to fully integrate nonnative English speaking professionals into the social fabric of high tech
workplaces.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Social capital theory is used as a frame to understand this problem. Coleman (1988)
defined social capital as multiple entities “with two elements in common: they all consist of
some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors…within the
structure” (p. 98). Portes (1998) later expanded and consolidated the theory based on its use in
the literature, concluding there is a shared understanding of social capital as “the ability of actors
to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures” (p. 6).
Social capital is derived from one’s connections to others, and includes such things as
reciprocity, norms, values, and trust, and can be measured at the level of the individual, group,

5
organization, community, and society. In the workplace, it improves access to information,
resources, and sponsorship (Seibert et al., 2001), and researchers often measure it using
questionnaires that assess trust, reciprocity, and network connections (Fukuyama, 2000).
Social capital theory is an appropriate lens through which to view the problem of the
barriers faced by nonnative English language speakers in engaging in workplace small talk.
Communication is an important aspect of building workplace social capital via creating networks
and building trust and rapport. If informal conversations with colleagues are difficult, nonnative
English language speakers might be at a disadvantage relative to their English-speaking peers in
creating workplace social capital (Neeley et al., 2012; Pullin, 2010). This disadvantage, in turn,
reduces their access to information and resources that may contribute to health (Suzuki et al.,
2010), wage satisfaction (Hauser et al., 2015), and career success (Siebert et al., 2001).
The research design is qualitative research interviewing. Qualitative research is an
approach to inquiry that is characterized by inductive reasoning, observation in a natural setting,
researcher involvement and reflexivity, data in different forms, participant meaning, and a
comprehensive account of the problem being examined (Creswell, 2018). A qualitative research
design is appropriate for this study because the researcher seeks to understand the informal
conversational experiences of and their consequences for nonnative English language speakers in
the workplace. The strategy of inquiry is semi-structured, in-depth interviews wherein the
researcher seeks to explore and describe the actual experiences of study participants, and
summarizes the experiences of several participants (Creswell, 2018). This approach aligns with
the framing of this study in that it will reveal the experiences of the participants in their own
words. This research design provides credibility because it presents first person accounts of lived

6
experiences. Strategies to increase credibility, including member checks, and an adequate
number of interviews were employed.
Definition of Terms
Several terms are central to this dissertation. These terms are described in the following
sections. The researcher acknowledges the ethnocentrism of the terms native and nonnative
English speakers and that they are not universally accepted in the literature. These terms are used
in this study as the best available descriptors.
English as a Lingua Franca
A lingua franca is a language that is adopted as a common language between speakers
whose native languages are different (Seidlhofer, 2005). English is the lingua franca of
international business, education, science, technology, diplomacy, entertainment, radio,
seafaring, and aviation (Wikipedia, n.d.) and is used by many multinational corporations. The
commonly used term for this in literature and practice is English as a Lingua Franca or ELF. A
closely related term is Business English as a Lingua Franca or BELF. BELF focuses on English
specific to business or professional contexts (Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta, 2011). Other
terms used to refer to the language individuals use include one’s first language, or language
learned and spoken from birth (L1) and one’s second language, or language learned and spoken
after childhood (L2).
Nonnative English Speakers
Nonnative English Speakers are persons who did not learn English from birth or very
early childhood (Great Schools Partnership, 2014). Terms also used to refer to this population
include English as a Second Language (ESL), English Language Learner (ELL), and English as
an Additional Language (EAL). In contrast, native English speakers are persons who learned

7
English from birth or very early childhood, while living in an English-speaking country and
culture—even if English is not necessarily the person's only language.
Nonnative Speech or Accented Speech
Nonnative accented speech or accented speech is speech that differs in pronunciation and
prosody from the local speech (Lippi-Green, 2012).
Small Talk
Phatic speech is primarily social in nature and does not involve the exchange of
information, an example being greetings (Malinowski, 1923). Small talk, although typically
thought of as informal and trivial exchanges with others (Coupland, 2003; Holmes, 2000c), is an
important type of conversation that occurs between individuals, whether familiar and unfamiliar,
and which serves important personal and social objectives (Coupland, 2003).
Social Capital
Social capital refers to the relational networks that exist within the organization and
enable workplace functioning (Bowles & Gintis, 2002). Through these relationships, shared
identity, understanding, norms, values, trust, cooperation, and reciprocity emerge. Moreover,
social capital offers a measure of the value of tangible and intangible resources produced through
these relationships. Specific to this study, it is proposed that social conversations in the
workplace build social capital (Coupland, 2000; Holmes, 2000c),
Organization of the Dissertation
The present chapter introduced the study, including a discussion of the context and
background of the problem, project purpose and research questions, importance of the study,
theoretical framework and methodology, and definitions. Chapter Two provides a review of
literature to support the present study, including an overview of Silicon Valley high tech

8
workplaces, an examination of research and theory related to social conversations in the
workplace, and discussion of nonnative English speakers working in the United States. The
chapter closes with a synthesis of the literature and presentation of a conceptual framework.
Chapter Three describes the research methods that will be used to conduct the present study,
including the research paradigm and design; study setting; ethical considerations; and procedures
related to recruiting participants and collecting and analyzing data. It also provides an
acknowledgement of my positionality as a researcher. Chapter Four presents the results emerging
from the present study. Chapter Five offers a discussion of the key findings and conclusions,
implications for organizations, limitations, and directions for future research.

9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter provides a review of literature to support the present study. The review
includes an overview of Silicon Valley high technology workplaces, an examination of research
and theory related to social conversations in the workplace, and discussion of nonnative English
speakers working in the United States. Foundational research on small talk in the workplace
reflects the work of Coupland (1992-2003), Holmes (2000c), and Pullin (2010), with limited new
research in the interim. The chapter closes with a synthesis of the literature and presentation of a
conceptual framework.
Silicon Valley High Technology Workplaces
The high technology industry can be defined as the population of companies that create
and develop leading-edge technological products and services through a systematic approach and
application of technical and scientific knowledge (Hecker, 2005). This study further specified
that high technology industries are those whose proportion of science, technology, engineering,
and math (STEM) workers are at least twice the average proportion of STEM employment across
all industries (Hecker, 2005; National Science Board, 2002). A total of 27 industries meet this
definition, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Roberts & Wolf, 2018). Thirteen are
goods-producing industries (e.g., electrical equipment manufacturing), which often have higher
concentrations of engineers. Fourteen are service-providing industries (e.g., data processing,
hosting, and related services), which tend to have higher concentrations of computer and
mathematical occupations. Other industries within the high tech designation include computer
systems design and related services; software publishers; scientific research and development
services; internet service providers and web search portals; and computer and peripheral
equipment manufacturing (Goldschlag & Miranda, 2016).

10
The term tech cities refers to specific geographical areas where tech companies are
clustered, which also have been reified as locales of urban techno-regeneration (Martins, 2015;
Nathan & Vandore, 2014), receiving large government grants to advance innovation and
establish communities of high-tech professionals (Duvivier et al., 2017; Vershinina et al., 2019).
Perhaps the most noteworthy geographic location associated with high tech specific to the
computer industry is Silicon Valley, an area located in the southern part of the San Francisco
Bay Area of California, with San Jose as its largest city. This area is where the leading-edge high
technology economic environment emerged (Madrigal, 2017; Mann & Luo, 2010). Mann and
Luo (2010) assert that Silicon Valley is the largest and most influential high-tech center in the
world, surpassing all other metropolitan regions in the United States in the range and extent of
economic activity generated through technological innovation (p. 58). Furthermore, productivity
grew 2.7% every year since roughly 2002 in digital industries, compared to physical industries
(e.g., health care, transportation, education, manufacturing, retail), which experienced only 0.7%
annual growth in the same period (Popper, 2017).
Median earnings in all technology-oriented occupations exceeded the median for all
workers in 2004, indicating that technology-oriented occupations constitute high skilled
employment (Goldschlag & Miranda, 2016). Accordingly, most engineers, scientists, and
technicians typically obtain specialized knowledge through a specific certification, formal
degrees, certifications, and other training. In 44 of the 46 industries, median 2004 earnings were
greater than overall median earnings across all industries. In 2008, high technology employees in
Silicon Valley earned about 61% more than their peers in the United States and generated $204.4
billion in wages within the Silicon Valley economy. This trend has continued to persist. Total
nonfarm wage and salary jobs in November 2020 was 142.6 million (Baron, 2018; Hecker,

11
2005). The 27 industries comprising high tech accounted for 5.9% of all service-providing
industry jobs and 7.4% of all goods-producing industry jobs in 2016 (Roberts & Wolf, 2018).
According to the North American Industry Classification System (2005), the 10 leading-edge
technology areas are biotechnology, life science technologies, optoelectronics, information and
communications, electronics, flexible manufacturing, advanced materials, aerospace, weapons,
and nuclear technology. High tech jobs command higher salaries than non-high tech jobs in the
same occupation group. For example, the median wage for civil engineers in high tech industries
was $84,490 in 2016, compared to $82,300 in non-high tech industries, a difference of 2.7%. The
discrepancy was highest for general and operations managers, where the median salary for
managers in high tech industries was $136,770, compared to $92,380—a difference of 48.1%
(Roberts & Wolf, 2018). High-tech industries accounted for 14.5 million jobs and about 9.9% of
total wage and salary employment in 2016 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018).
Over the last 20 years, the technology industry has become the most powerful industry in
the world, boasting seven of the 20 most profitable companies. As of 2017, tech companies
occupied the top five rankings of companies with the strongest market value. These included
Apple, Google (now Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook. For example, in 2016, Apple
doubled the profits ($53.4 billion) of the second-most profitable company, J.P. Morgan Chase
($24.4 billion) (Baron, 2018).
Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL, www.apple.com) is a worldwide high technology company
established in 1977. The company is headquartered in Cupertino, California. Revenue is on an
upward trend, with $214.23 billion reported in 2016 and $274.15 billion reported in 2020. As of
2020, Apple had 147,000 employees (MarketWatch, 2020a). Apple designs, creates, develops

12
and sells smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and related
services (Yahoo Finance, n.d.).
Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOGL, abc.xyz) is a holding company that acquires and operates
companies most notably, through the Google and Other Bets segments. The Google segment
includes its main Internet products such as ads, Android, Chrome, hardware, Google Cloud,
Google Maps, Google Play, Search, and YouTube. The Other Bets segment includes Access,
Calico, CapitalG, GV, Verily, Waymo, and X. The company was established in 1998 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California. As of 2020, Alphabet had 118,899 employees and
reported revenues of $161.4 billion (up from $73.59 billion in 2015; MarketWatch, 2020b).
Together, the top five organizations employ more than 1.27 million people and report
annual revenue in excess of $929.4 billion. These statistics indicate that the high tech industry
organizations and those like them make substantial impacts on the U.S. and global economies.
Workforce Demographics
In Silicon Valley, the high tech workforce is predominately White and male. Google has
confirmed that men comprise 70% of its global workforce (Hustad, 2014). Moreover, only 17%
of Google’s technical teams are female in the global environment. This disproportionate
representation is consistent across the industry. Based on a study of diversity in high tech
conducted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2016), compared to all
industries in the U.S. private sector, high tech had a relatively larger share of Whites (68.5% vs.
63.5%), and a larger share of Asian Americans (14% vs. 5.8%). Other groups were less
represented by a significant margin in the tech sector compared to all private industry, including
African Americans (7.4% vs. 14.3%) and Hispanics (8% vs. 13.9%). There was a 12-percentage-

13
point difference between female participation in high tech versus all private industries (35.7% vs.
48.2%).
Pittinsky (2016) similarly noted that Silicon Valley represents one of the least diverse
sectors of the U.S. economy, with 83% percent of its tech workers being male and 94% being
White or Asian. In terms of national diversity, many of its foreign workers are Asian on H-1B
visas issued by the U.S. government. Under the H-1B visa program, foreign workers are
permitted to work at a U.S. company for 3 years (U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services,
2020). The visa may be renewed once, after which the employer may request authorization to
provide the immigrant with a permanent position under the Department of Labor's PERM
certification program. However, this process must first involve advertising the position to
American citizens and offering it to a qualified individual, should one apply. Silicon Valley
companies have long relied on H-1B visa workers (one of 22 U.S. temporary work visa
classifications). According to the Software Alliance, the software industry, along with other
sectors employing highly skilled foreign workers, depends on nonimmigrant visa programs such
as H-1B to fill specific roles essential to their operations (as cited in Baron, 2020, p. 1). By early
2018, approximately 71% of tech employees in Silicon Valley were foreign born (Baron, 2018).
In 2016, outsourcing companies were awarded the majority of H-1B visas, while Google
received over 2,500 visas and Apple was awarded almost 2,000 visas for foreign workers. By
2023, tech companies in Silicon Valley continued to dominate the use of the H-1B visa program
to secure skilled foreign talent. According to Envoy Global (2023), Amazon.com Services led
the list, filing 13,205 Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) for H-1B visas with an average
salary of $146,280. Other major sponsors included Google (4,043 LCAs), Microsoft (3,547
LCAs), Apple (2,956 LCAs), and Meta (formerly Facebook) with 2,628 LCAs. These figures

14
highlight the ongoing reliance of high-tech companies on the H-1B program to fill critical roles
and maintain innovation in a globally competitive environment.
Table 1
New or Extended H-1B Visa Approvals Received by Silicon Valley Companies in 2023
Company Approved H-1B Visas
Amazon.com Services 13, 205
Google 4,043
Microsoft 3,547
Apple 2,956
Meta (formerly Facebook) 2,628
Note: Data from “H-1B Visa Sponsors: Top Companies, Cities, and Jobs for 2023,” Envoy
Global, 2023.
The H-1B visa program, the largest of the United States’ guest worker initiatives, has
been the subject of significant controversy (Baron, 2018, 2020; Lee, 2020; Torres, 2017). While
advocates state that the program serves as a critical pipeline of high-skilled immigration for
specialized, hard-to-fill jobs, critics allege that companies use these programs to outsource jobs
to lower paid foreign workers. The program has faced increased scrutiny for several years
(Torres, 2017), with the U.S. government filing lawsuits against tech giants for alleged
discrimination against U.S. workers (Lee, 2020). As of 2023, the annual cap for H1-B visas
remains at 85,000 new visas, including 20,000 reserved for advanced degree holders from U.S.
institutions (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2023).
The statistics described in this section indicate that the Silicon Valley workforce appears
to be predominantly male and foreign-born, although regulatory changes and diversity efforts
may serve to shift this distribution to some degree. Nonetheless, given the substantial population
of foreign workers in Silicon Valley, the experiences of nonnative English speakers appear to be
worthy of investigation. The next section continues the examination of Silicon Valley

15
workplaces by reviewing literature related to these organization’s typical culture and social
environment.
Prevalent Organizational Cultures
Organizational culture in Silicon Valley's tech industry is often associated with
challenging dynamics that reflect deeply ingrained power structures. Blogs, books, popular press,
and media have described this culture as embodying an atmosphere of hegemonic masculinity.
The culture has been characterized by bullying, sexism, and other forms of employee-onemployee harassment (Ozkazanc-Pan, 2014).
Extreme examples of the culture are presented in Chang's (2019) book, Brotopia, which
describe hot tub interviews with investors and drug-fueled sex parties. According to Marianne
Cooper, sociologist at the Stanford VMware Women's Leadership Innovation Lab and researcher
of troubling tech workplace behavior, bro culture is pervasive and results in exclusive
environments that exclude women and others who do not support behaviors such as excessive
and heavily sexualized talk (Piazza, 2018). While these extreme examples may be confined to
startups, other studies on Silicon Valley have echoed that workplace aggression, bullying, and
harassment are common (Chaudry et al., 2019). Garcia (2016) surveyed more than 200 women
with at least 10 years of experience working in tech companies (mostly in Silicon Valley) and
found that 60% of women reported unwanted sexual advances and 65% of them had received
those advances from superiors at work. Additionally, 90% of women witnessed harassment at
company offsite programs or at conferences. Scott et al. (2017) similarly found that toxic
workplace cultures, characterized by unfair management practices, stereotyping, and bullying
dominate large Silicon Valley companies. One Latinx female developer in their study reported,
“There were a lot of rude and condescending employees that treated me like I was less

16
competent. The general culture there also wasn't diverse, so I struggled fitting in and making
friends… I felt very isolated” (p. 14). A female Asian participant noted, “There was a multi-year
pattern of young affluent white males who lacked skills and experience being unfairly sponsored,
fast-tracked through promotions, and handed top choice of high-profile projects” (p. 11).
Snyder’s (2014) informal study particularly spotlighted the effect of spontaneous, low
structure meetings typical in Silicon Valley. In such meetings, the Silicon Valley norm of
interrupting others serves to reinforce dominant voices, particularly those who are accustomed to
being heard, while overpowering less confident individuals, such as minority, female, and
nonnative English-speaking employees (Dempsey, 2019; Lundy, 2017; Snyder, 2014). Given the
extensive attention Silicon Valley’s characteristic hegemonic masculinity has received, some
critics have been working to change it due to its exclusionary nature and practices (Crossman,
2018; Piazza, 2018). Despite some successes, these initiatives continue to face challenges, as is
discussed in the next section.
Diversity and Inclusion Challenges and Initiatives
Increasingly, industries and organizations around the globe have attempted to enhance
diversity, equity, and inclusion in their ranks. Achieving these goals requires increasing
recruitment and development of underrepresented groups (“Silicon Valley Bank,” 2020). This
approach is particularly important in Silicon Valley, given that racial diversity in high tech
companies has been the subject of substantial attention by researchers and practitioners. Statistics
indicate, for example, that as of 2014, only 7% of Apple's employees in tech jobs were Black,
only 11% were Hispanic, and only 30% were women (Guynn & Weise, 2014). Google,
Facebook, and Twitter additionally reported equally low numbers of representation for female,
Black, and Hispanic employees. These statistics persist even in non-tech job categories in Silicon

17
Valley, with minority representation continuing to lag far below national averages. For example,
Blacks are 6% of managers nationally, but only 2% or less at Yahoo, Facebook, and Google
(Guynn et al., 2014). In terms of gender representation, 83% of Google's engineers, 79% of its
managers, and 92% of its top executives are male (Manjoo, 2014).
Yet, success stories related to diversity and inclusion also are evident. With 35% of its
workforce consisting of minority individuals, Salesforce has earned recognition for good
corporate leadership and for being among the most diverse of the Big Tech companies
(Foroohar, 2018). The company's 1-1-1 model, in which it donates 1% of equity, 1% of
employee time, and 1% of products to nonprofits in the communities where it operates, has been
in place since 1999 and is widely praised and frequently emulated.
Across Silicon Valley, although there has been a significant increase in the recruitment of
women, studies indicate that high rates of gender discrimination persist (Freeman, 2000; Tan,
2008); men’s and women’s roles remain differentiated (Conor et al., 2015; Duffy, 2016), with
women having trouble reaching senior management positions; and both misogyny and
inequitable pay are rampant (Hardey, 2017; McLaughlin et al., 2017). For example, gender role
differences are reflected in women’s recruitment to creative or community manager roles,
whereas male employees are referred to as “brogrammers,” “coders,” or “digital engineers”
(Hardey, 2017). Several female executives in tech organizations interviewed by Hardey (2019)
explained that to succeed and advance in their careers, they changed their styles, manner of
dress, and work approach to “become one of the boys” (p. 194) and align with masculine culture.
Researchers further argued that labels such as women in tech or girls who code ultimately
reinforce gender stereotypes (Dodge et al., 2011) and restrict women’s movement and potential
in the industry (Hardey, 2019; Rydzik & Ellis-Vowles, 2018), even as proponents of gender

18
equity aim to use such terms to acknowledge women’s roles and to establish parity. Moreover,
blogs, memoirs, essays by women in tech and journalistic reports based upon interviews with
Asian and White women in the San Francisco technology industry continue to identify pervasive
patterns of sexist, racist, and misogynistic behavior, as well as the rejection of qualified Black
candidates as a normative part of the bro occupational culture (Benner, 2017; Chang, 2018;
Fowler, 2017; Isaac, 2017; Pao, 2017; Reed, 2016; Shevinsky, 2015).
In recent years, Silicon Valley organizations have increasingly prioritized diversity,
equity, and inclusion by appointing Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officers. These
officers are tasked with fostering diversity, expanding access to the innovation economy for
underrepresented groups, and supporting communities through targeted initiatives. Efforts
include employee awareness programs, continuous training, educational opportunities, outreach
in hiring, leadership development, and strategic partnerships (“Silicon Valley Bank,” 2020).
Newer data indicate progress in the workforce representation of women and minorities, with
women representing > 30%, Black employees >5%, and Latinx employees at approximately 8%
of the global workforce at Google and Microsoft (Google, 2023; Microsoft, 2023).
Nonnative English Speakers Working in the United States
Nonnative English Speakers (NNS) are those individuals who did not learn English from
birth or very early childhood. This section reviews the population of NNS who are working in
the United States. The following sections describe host country nationals’ perceptions of
nonnative English-speaking workers and the training and support available to these individuals.
Next, research on how these individuals negotiate workplace social conversations is reviewed,
including their patterns of engagement in these conversations and the barriers they experience.

19
Notably, there is a lack of existing in-depth literature about nonnative English speakers’
experiences with workplace social conversations.
Host Country Nationals’ Perceptions of Nonnative English-Speaking Workers
The attitudes and perceptions of host country nationals play a critical role in shaping the
workplace experiences of nonnative English-speaking employees. Instituting English as a lingua
franca in multinational corporations has been shown to cause language-related inefficiencies and
difficulties with interpersonal communication for both native and nonnative speakers (Young &
Faux, 2011). Thuessen (2017) similarly concluded that communication difficulties associated
with linguistic diversity have a “large impact” (p. 948) on social relations in the workplace.
Nonnative, accented English speakers face “subtle and diffused forms” of workplace
discrimination (Russo et al., 2016, p. 507). A number of studies examine the difficulty native
speakers have understanding accented speech. In a study of 48 native English-speaking
university undergraduates, Schmid and Yeni-Komshian (1999) found accented speech required
more processing time than non-accented speech. This finding is supported by Wilson and
Spaulding’s (2010) study of 54 English-speaking listeners’ processing of speech produced from
native English; high-intelligibility, Korean-accented English; and moderate-intelligibility,
Korean-accented English speakers. Listener comprehension, as determined by listeners’ accuracy
answering true/false questions and listeners’ processing time estimated based on response
latency, was assessed under three conditions: quiet, +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and +5
dB SNR.
Study findings indicated that under noise conditions, processing time of foreign-accented
speech was unaffected. However, noise did decrease listeners’ comprehension of the foreignaccented speech as compared to comprehension of native speech under the same noise condition.

20
Decreasing English intelligibility also resulted in reduced listener comprehension. In addition,
the processing time needed to comprehend the intended message depended on the intelligibility
of the foreign-accented speaker. Listener comprehension negatively correlated with processing
time. The researchers concluded that decreased speech intelligibility and adverse listening
conditions can present significant challenges for effective communication between foreignaccented speakers and native listeners. The results also indicate that foreign-accented speech
requires more effortful processing relative to native speech under certain conditions, affecting
both comprehension and processing efficiency (Wilson & Spaulding, 2010). Using functional
magnetic resonance imaging, Yi et al. (2014) confirmed the “greater computational demand” (p.
1) associated with accented speech and additionally found that simultaneously viewing the face
of an East Asian speaker increased the perception of “foreignness” (p. 1) of the accented speech.
In their 2015 study, Hatzidaki et al. found a bias towards processing negative words in samples
of accented speech.
Other studies have revealed this negative bias extends to discrimination in employment
decisions, with job candidates presenting with nonnative accented speech judged to be less
competent (Hansen et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2016; Nguyen, 2010) and evaluated more
negatively (Deprez‐Sims & Morris, 2010) than candidates with native speech. Further, this effect
is more pronounced for female job candidates (Nelson et al., 2016). The evidence highlights
nonnative accented speech as a source of bias in employment decisions across varying
demographics, mediated by accent prestige (Dewaele & McCloskey, 2015; Sliwa & Johansson,
2014) and the perceived similarity of the accent to that of the rater (Deprez-Sims & Morris,
2010).

21
Young and Faux (2011) also pointed to native speakers’ low tolerance for the failure of
nonnative speakers’ use of known conversational scripts and behaviors. This low tolerance led to
negative perceptions of nonnative English speakers’ overall competency, with native speakers
identifying them as members of the “out-group” and demonstrating non-helping behaviors
toward them (Young & Faux, 2011, p. 503). In their model of linguistically diverse
organizations, Kulkarni and Sommer (2015) revealed that nonnative language use activates racial
and ethnic stereotypes in the listener and also negatively impacts perceptions of overall
competence.
Native English or highly-proficient second language speakers also report feelings of
resentment and frustration at nonnatives speakers’ “code-switching” (Hinds et al., 2014, p. 545)
or use of their mother tongue in meetings (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2015). This finding is consistent
with Neely (2012) who found native speakers to feel excluded when same first language
nonnative speakers held separate meetings in their mother tongue. In contrast, Mauranen (2006)
finds native speakers’ understanding and willingness to help nonnative speakers by
demonstrating helping behaviors, including making their speech clearer and more direct and
employing repetitions as necessary (as cited in Pullin, 2010).
Training and Support
Much workplace training is focused on building communication skills. A 2011 report
found the cost to large U.S.- and U.K.-based corporations of poor communication among
employees to be $37 billion annually, with a cost per employee of approximately $26,000 due to
lost productivity resulting from communication barriers (Holmes Report, July 2011).
Communication training and support are particularly important for nonnative English speakers in
order to encourage full and competent participation in workplace conversations. The need for

22
workplace communication training is evidenced by the myriad textbooks and other resources
addressing this topic, both for native English speakers (Dwyer, 1993; Galvin et al., 1992; Sligo,
1990) and nonnative English speakers (e.g., Adamson, 1991; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Grant &
McLarty, 1995). A 2015 project in France, assessing the effect of speaking English in the
workplace on employment prospects, found companies offering personal effectiveness and
language instruction to address the challenges presented by working in a second language (Labor
and Economic Market Performance [LEMP], 2015). Garner and Sharma (2022) highlighted that
small talk in ESL classrooms extends beyond its ritualistic function. It serves as both a tool for
language learning and a valuable resource for fostering students’ intercultural communicative
competence. This finding underscores the dual role of small talk in language acquisition and
interpersonal skills development, which could inform workplace training initiatives. Holmes’
(1986) study of a New Zealand workplace supports this need for training, as she determined
learning social communication skills through everyday conversational exposure to be unlikely.
Pullin (2010) also suggested that, in the case of small talk in particular, companies remain
aware of its importance and ensure time is dedicated for workers to engage in social
conversations. The researcher provides the example of a birthday party in a multicultural
workplace, where small talk centered around a unifying theme of the various foods being served
and their cultural origins). These findings are supported by Kalla (2006) who highlights the
positive effects on organizational efficiency of fostering all types of communication in the
workplace.
Neeley et al. (2012) emphasized the importance of organizational leaders’ fostering
empathy between native and nonnative speakers, to reduce negative feelings). This study also
suggests organizations create a safe environment for communication, encourage native speakers

23
to help, and nonnative speakers to practice speaking in non-threatening situations. This
recommendation is further supported by Kulkarni and Sommer (2015) who encourage
organizations to institute “linguistic sensitization programs” (p. 648) and Tenzer and Pudelko
(2015) who emphasize awareness of the negative emotional impact of language differences and
encourage organizations to expand diversity training to include “cross-lingual sensitivity” (p.
623). Thuessen (2017) noted management’s role in providing language training and intercultural
communication training for native speakers.
Social Conversations in the Workplace
Workplace small talk, often dismissed as inconsequential or superficial, plays a
significant role in shaping interpersonal dynamics and communication within professional
environments. Small talk is typically thought of within popular, academic, and professional
circles as an informal and trivial manner of speaking with others, whether those others are
strangers, acquaintances, or closer affiliations (Coupland, 2003; Holmes, 2000c). This mode of
conversation is often considered to be insignificant, superficial, and undemanding in content or
cognitive resources, as opposed to conceptualizations of so-called real talk, which focuses on
serious, useful, or task-oriented topics in the interests of accomplishing a specific goal
(Coupland, 2003; Holmes, 2000c). This sentiment is especially true of small talk in the
workplace where it has been viewed as inconsequential when compared with “work talk” and as
a distraction (Fletcher, 1999). Small talk’s history in the linguistics domain is similarly
dismissive, with Malinowski (1923/1972) deeming it to be “mere sociabilities” (p. 150), lacking
any real content and coining the term “phatic communication” (p. 150). Linguists have tended to
focus on “real talk” rather than talk that is primarily interpersonal in nature (Brown & Yule,
1983).

24
Despite the marginalization of small talk as compared to real talk, the former has been the
focus of various past research (e.g., Coupland & Ylänne-McEwen, 2000; Holmes, 2000c; Tracy
& Naughton, 2000) in an effort to understand the specific features of and tasks accomplished
through this unique form of communication. Holmes (2000c) created a continuum for the various
types of talk in the workplace, from work talk and talk about work at one end, to small talk and
phatic communication (little content, e.g., greetings) at the other end. Thornborrow’s (2003)
study of children's unsupervised interaction in a school setting where a small mixed-age group of
pupils were working on a math problem, off-task communication or small talk was used to
discuss serious moral issues (e.g., smoking, cheating) and reveal participants’ views about key
issues relevant to school life and broader issues within their community. Small talk also was used
to reinforce social relationships in peer-group hierarchies, such as when to do small talk, when to
resist it in favor solving the problem, and who had the power to enforce such decisions. Other
research has indicated that small talk is used to establish group norms (Blum-Kulka, 2000;
Eggins & Slade, 1997).
Holmes (2000c) outlines two main functions of small talk. First, as a discourse strategy to
manage social interactions, for example, to ease the transition in and out of business issues, such
as at the end of meetings or filling in between different activities. Second, to serve social
functions, “constructing, expressing, maintaining and reinforcing interpersonal relationships”
(pp. 47-48). Holmes relates this to both solidarity and power and to the fact that relational work
can further transactional goals (Pullin, 2010). There is general agreement that small talk is a
comfortable ritual involving discussion of safe topics (e.g., the weather, social activities, sports)
and ideally yielding an emotionally positive interaction (Coupland, 2003; Holmes, 2000c).
Holmes described small talk as elastic, adaptable, and infinitely flexible in duration, noting that,

25
like knitting, “it can be picked up and dropped with minimal effort” (p. 133) In the workplace, an
acceptable and even desirable small talk topic is one’s workload as it demonstrates productivity
and appropriately excuses one’s lack of attention to workplace social relationships (Holmes,
2000c). There are contextual variations in acceptable topics and response patterns in small talk
based on relationship strength and intimacy (Holmes, 2000c) and standing in the workplace
hierarchy (Wolfson, 1983). Culture similarly influences topic selection particularly concerning
the appropriateness of compliments, what constitutes a compliment, who can offer one and to
whom, and how they should be responded to. For example, Holmes (1986) found that in New
Zealand workplaces, appearance compliments were common between women but nonexistent
between men.
Other studies have discovered intercultural differences, where recipients of compliments
in many Asian cultures are expected to diminish, deny or disagree with compliments, whereas in
Western cultures, it is customary to offer a simple thank you (Chen, 1993; Herbert, 1989;
Holmes, 1986; Manes, 1983; Pomerantz, 1978; Ylanne-McEwen, 1993). Due to the many
normative variations surrounding this manner of interaction, several researchers have concluded
that, although common in workplace small talk, there are risks to expressing compliments
(Cordella et al., 1995; Herbert, 1991; Holmes & Brown, 1987; Jaworski, 1995). This discussion
reveals that workplace small talk is highly nuanced, requiring participants to swiftly and
accurately assess conversational opportunities and adopt a tone and topic suitable for the context,
cultural setting, and time constraints. Thus, small talk is a challenging task for workplace
“novices” (Holmes, 2003) and nonnative English speakers (Holmes, 2000c).
Despite the suggestions that small talk is merely a formulaic and superficial mode of talk
(Coupland, 2003), it is evident from this brief review of extant research that such an assessment

26
is a significant oversimplification. Small talk is closely linked with “real talk” which relies on a
certain level of interpersonal connection (Pullin, 2010). Moreover, small talk serves a variety of
important functions in the workplace, and these are discussed in greater detail in the next section.
Function
The primary function of small talk is social (Holmes, 2000c). Small talk serves to create
and maintain workplace social relationships, what Holmes (2000c) calls “doing collegiality” (p.
133) or “oil(ing) the interpersonal wheels” (p. 131), foster a socially cohesive work environment
(Brown & Levinson, 1987; J. Coupland et al., 1992; J. Coupland, Robinson, & Coupland, 1994;
Eggins & Slade 1997; Laver, 1975; Schneider, 1988; Tannen, 1989; Coupland, 2000), and create
a structure for social interaction (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Coupland, J., Coupland, N., &
Robinson, 1992; Coupland, J., Robinson, M., & Coupland, N., 1994; Eggins & Slade, 1997;
Laver, 1975; Schneider, 1988; Tannen, 1989). Components of small talk’s social function
include politeness, putting others at ease, addressing the needs for mutual recognition and
making a positive impression (Brown & Levinson, 1987), and filling otherwise awkward silences
with a pleasant distraction (Coupland, 2003). Language serves three main functions, as outlined
by Halliday (1978), namely ideational (content), interpersonal (social relationships), and textual
(meaning). Real talk, which focuses on useful or task-oriented content, also carries social
meaning (Coupland, 2003), but small talk prioritizes the interpersonal and relational aspects of
an interaction above all else. The familiar formula for small talk interactions, with comments on
the weather or sports, may be almost completely devoid of content, with its sole purpose to
create a positive social moment (Coupland, 2003). Sandstrom and Dunn (2013) demonstrated
that even brief social interactions with strangers, such as at coffee shops, enhanced feelings of

27
belonging and happiness, reinforcing the notion that small talk contributes to positive emotional
experiences.
Small talk’s social role in the workplace is evident in various workplace moments and
settings. At the start of a meeting, small talk helps prepare participants for the discussion ahead
and sets a positive emotional tone (Holmes, 2000c), and if curtailed or omitted completely, may
offend participants (Metge & Kinloch, 1978; Metge, 1995). Similarly, small talk is important
when a workplace interaction ends to solidify the relationship and reduce the chance a participant
feels rejected (Laver, 1975). Small talk also fosters the building and maintenance of relationships
in the workplace by creating a bridge to more detailed, meaningful social talk, often during
sanctioned breaks in the workday (Holmes, 2000c). Lowering the threat associated with social
contact with unfamiliar others is another function of small talk (Brown & Levinson, 1987;
Coupland, J., Coupland, N., & Robinson, 1992; Coupland, J., Robinson, M., & Coupland, N.,
1994; Eggins & Slade, 1997; Laver, 1975; Schneider, 1988; Tannen, 1989), in part, by the ability
of these rote utterances to create boundaries around an interaction, such as in a customer service
experience (Beinstein, 1975; see also Coulmas, 1981). Social norms also dictate that when in a
common space, small talk may be obligatory (McCarthy, 2000), with Scollon (1985) likening
social communication to a machine that must always be “humming” so we know it is working.
Storytelling in small talk is also supportive of its social function by allowing talk of controversial
topics from a safe narrative distance, fostering intimacy, and creating an enjoyable interaction
(Coupland, 2003).
At a deeper level of social functioning, and importantly for organizations, one of small
talk’s key purposes is to build rapport (Campbell et al., 2003; Fletcher, 1999; Holden, 2002;
Holmes, 2000c; Holmes & Stubbe, 2003; Pullin, 2010; Spencer-Oatey, 2000, 2002, 2005), and

28
develop solidarity (Pullin, 2010). Methot et al. (2021) found that small talk enhanced employees'
daily positive social emotions, which in turn increased organizational citizenship behaviors and
improved well-being by the end of the workday. Rapport, defined by Spencer-Oatey (2000) as
“the relative harmony and smoothness of relations between people” (p.12) is key to establishing
and nurturing solid interpersonal relationships in the workplace (Pullin, 2010). The important
role of effective interpersonal relationships on teamwork in linguistically diverse workplaces was
also noted by Idema and Scheeres (2003). Similarly, Maiz-Arevalo (2017) found that in
intercultural online collaborations using English as a lingua franca, small talk was central to
building rapport and fostering group collaboration despite the transactional nature of the task.
Women managers use small talk to foster collegiality and solidarity in the workplace (Mullany,
2006). Part of small talk’s role in building rapport and solidarity is in its ability to diffuse
tensions, acting as an acceptable means for discussing different viewpoints, and when personal
stories are shared, offering an alternative view of persons that are only known in the workplace
(Pullin, 2010). The author reflected that the evolution of the modern workplace powered by
technology, globalization, the focus on productivity, and on building interpersonal trust to
enhance knowledge sharing and transfer is reliant on this “omnipresent” (p. 471) form of
communication.
Status maintenance and impression management are also functions of small talk in the
workplace. According to Goffman (1972), individuals demonstrate an inherent interest in the
impressions formed by others, which are influenced by social interactions. Coupland (2003)
expanded on this, identifying the basic human need for mutual recognition as the impetus for the
“bonding and respecting behaviors” (p. 5) carried out in workplace social conversations.
Similarly, a study of children engaged in a learning-based group task found them renegotiating

29
their social standing by allowing small talk or curtailing it to return to the task before them
(Thornborrow, 2003). These power dynamics are also played out in the workplace, with those
with a relatively more powerful position most often controlling the start, end, and overall length
of the small talk interaction, or the timing of the shift to work-related topics (Holmes, 2000c).
Attempts by those with less relative power in the workplace to initiate or extend small talk are
viewed negatively and often thwarted (Clyne, 1994). Researchers have also found a more
calculating use of small talk to assert power in the workplace, with superiors engaged in
repression or coercion (Fairclough, 1992; Pateman, 1980) and subordinates engaged in
opposition (Holmes, 1998, 2000b).
Small talk works to establish and maintain group norms and allow groups to engage in
the business of moral work. The children in Thornborrow’s (2003) study used small talk during a
group school task to discuss important moral issues (e.g., smoking, cheating, and fighting) and
establish group norms and beliefs. This function of small talk was previously attributed to talk
best characterized as gossip (Blum-Kulka, 2000; Eggins & Slade, 1997). Storytelling within the
frame of small talk similarly facilitates the negotiation of taboo issues and establishes group
norms. By listening to a narrative, participants are at an emotional distance from taboo topics and
are thus freer to engage in the conversation and negotiate shared beliefs (Coupland, 2003).
Small talk is necessary for individual and organizational success (Tracy & Naughton,
2000). For individuals, it is insufficient to speak competently about work-related matters. To be
successful one must have the ability to make small talk, due to its importance in maintaining
social cohesion in the workplace (Coupland, 2003). At an organizational level, Pullin (2010)
notes its importance in “an effective and productive business” (p. 455), and the plethora of
communication training programs is evidence of its crucial role in maintaining a cohesive,

30
efficient work environment (Holmes, 2000c). Yuan et al. (2023) further demonstrated that small
talk fosters trust among employees, which in turn facilitates the sharing of information in the
workplace. Ably engaging in small talk, with the correct topic, tone, and length is essential to
achieving goals in the workplace (Holmes, 2000c). Given this key role in individual and
organizational success, it is important that everyone participates fully and competently in
workplace small talk. Holmes (2003) emphasized that small talk is “indispensable” (p. 76) in the
workplace, even in a transactionally oriented environment, and those new to the organization,
including nonnative English speakers, must be proficient in this form of talk.
The flexibility inherent in small talk makes it useful to bridge boundaries, make
transitions, and avoid disengagement in the workplace (Holmes, 2000b). Small talk occurs at the
beginning and end of the workday, and of events such as meetings. Small talk facilitates the
changeover to work topics in a meeting (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and creates a positive
environment (Holmes, 2000c). Small talk also serves to occupy the time between different work
events or activities (Holmes, 2000c), effectively avoiding awkward silences, using downtime in a
valuable way to build and support relationships, and reducing the risk that participants will
become disengaged prior to the start of the upcoming activity (Holmes, 2000a, 2000c). At the
end of interactions, small talk addresses “positive face” needs (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p.61),
avoids rejection, and solidifies the relationship (Laver, 1975).
Process Model
Small talk in the workplace follows a structured and dynamic process essential for
fostering communicative interactions and building relationships. Like all forms of conversation,
small talk is a two-way interaction that has rules and follows a clear process in the workplace
(Carter & McCarthy, 2008). The importance of making effective small talk at work is evidenced

31
by the books and course offerings on the topic for both native (Dwyer, 1993; Galvin et al.,1992;
Sligo, 1990) and nonnative English speakers (e.g., Adamson, 1991; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Grant
& McLarty, 1995).
The timing of workplace small talk is important, occurring upon first and last contact of
the day and at the crossing of event boundaries such as the beginning and end of a meeting
(Holmes, 2000c). A critical juncture is on arrival at work and or on first encounter for the day,
when small talk is virtually obligatory so as not to appear rude (Holmes, 2000b). Small talk also
occurs during the numerous other encounters in a workday but may lead to lengthier, more
meaningful social talk during breaks and lunch hours (Holmes, 2000c). Importantly, in a work
setting, urgent business will always supersede small talk (Holmes, 2000c). Allen et al. (2014)
identified pre-meeting talk—small talk that occurs just before workplace meetings—as
particularly significant for improving meeting effectiveness, beyond the role of formal meeting
procedures.
Small talk involves turn-taking and listenership. As with all conversations, small talk is
an interaction characterized by participants taking turns to speak (Coupland, 2003). Listenership
is also part of small talk (Coupland & Jaworski, 2003), but the utterances of listeners have
received limited research interest (McCarthy, 2003). These listener responses, referred to as
“response tokens” (McCarthy, 2003, p. 33), are over and above a simple listening response and
signal a willingness to engage and add creativity to the rote utterances that characterize small
talk. The process, amount, and nature of small talk vary by context. Context dictates the
parameters for small talk, as Levinson (1992) illustrated with a continuum of events from a jural
interrogation to a dinner party. According to Levinson, the likelihood and appropriateness of
small talk at the jural interrogation is very low in contrast with the dinner party, where primarily

32
relational conversation is expected. Drawing a parallel to the workplace, small talk before an
important meeting necessarily differs from small talk during lunch with colleagues. Small talk
also serves as a lead up to more involved social talk, but is always displaced by urgent work
issues, and navigating this transition is a sophisticated, yet important, skill in the workplace
(Holmes, 2000c). In addition, the outcome for the participants in a small talk interaction differs
according to the context of the conversation (Schegloff, 1992). Coupland (2003) noted the fluid
nature of small talk conversations with “speakers’ orientations, framings, and footings shift,
reflecting their changing local priorities as talk proceeds’ (p. 5). Different cultural contexts have
expectations around the presence and amount of small talk, with attempts to alter either
potentially deemed offensive (Metge & Kinloch, 1978; Metge, 1995).
In the workplace the highest-ranking member acts as a process owner of the small talk
interaction, making virtually all start, stop, and transition to work talk decisions (cf. Clyne, 1994;
Holmes, 2000c; Hornyak, n.d., cited in Tannen, 1994). This power dynamic is at play across all
small talk contexts in a workplace (e.g., one-on-one interactions, meetings; Holmes, 2000c). The
consequences for a lower-ranking employee that resists a superior’s signal to bring small talk to
an end include being ignored, redirected, or viewed in a negative light. Exceptionally skilled
conversationalists may successfully engage in small talk with a superior to bridge the social
distance and garner a favor. Managers often display considerable skill in seamlessly transitioning
a conversation from small talk to work talk, and Holmes (2000) accordingly identifies this as an
important skill for nonnative English speakers to acquire. Additionally, manipulative uses of
small talk to assert inappropriate power, by superiors who use coercion (Fairclough, 1992;
Pateman, 1980) and subordinates who protest (Holmes, 1998) have been identified.
Preconditions

33
Successfully engaging in workplace small talk requires a combination of communicative
experience, skill, and motivation, all of which contribute to the ability to navigate these nuanced
interactions. Communicative experience, skill, and motivation are necessary to successfully
engage in workplace small talk (Coupland, 2003). Conversationalists vary in their level of small
talk ability with some appearing to be “naturals” that effortlessly put at ease and engage their
communication partners and easily fill potentially embarrassing silences (Coupland, 2003). The
researcher noted one often takes small talk ability for granted but could better view it as an
accomplishment or a skill to be honed. This communicative competence develops early
(Thornborrow, 2003), unconsciously, and automatically from being immersed in a culture and
experiences across a myriad of social situations (Coupland, 2003). Another key to success is the
“extensive corpus” (McCarthy, 2003, p. 46) of appropriate responses listeners develop over time
and then access to let the speaker know they are engaged in the social talk. These responses also
serve to layer creativity, add positivity and indicate the type of listener engagement (McCarthy,
2003). The complexity, subtlety, and automaticity of acquiring and demonstrating
communicative competence in workplace small talk conversations therefore poses a significant
challenge for nonnative English speakers (e.g., Clyne, 1991; Gumperz et al., 1979 ; Holmes,
2000c; Roberts et al., 1992; Thomas, 1983).
Shared background knowledge is also essential for successful small talk conversations. If
a speaker incorrectly assumes shared background knowledge (e.g., of a popular TV show) with
the listener, what was intended to be a brief, positive interaction becomes instantly awkward and
may necessitate a lengthy explanation. A lack of background knowledge and common
experiences present another challenge to successful communication by nonnative English
speakers in the workplace (Holmes, 1986). Further, appropriate topics for small talk (e.g., the

34
giving and receiving of compliments) vary by culture and can further complicate nonnative
English speakers’ participation in workplace small talk (Holmes, 2000c).
Knowledge and use of appropriate small talk topics are similarly important for effective
workplace interactions (Holmes, 2000c). “Safe” topics include the immediate environment or
circumstance, the weather, surface level health inquiries, family, hobbies, sports, and popular
culture (TV, movies, concerts, etc.). Holmes (2000c) noted that, in the workplace, it is
particularly appropriate to discuss one’s workload or level of busyness as it also serves to align
with organizational productivity goals. Controversial or polarizing topics, including gossip,
overly personal revelations, offensive jokes, politics, and religion must be avoided.
Another precondition of successful small talk is knowledge of what is expected in
specific contexts. Context dictates the parameters for small talk, specifically its presence and
extent (Levinson, 1992). A workplace example of context-dependent small talk would be the
quick check in on everyone’s weekend at the start of a meeting, contrasted with the small talk
turned more in-depth social talk between colleagues over lunch. Deftly navigating various
workplace contexts is a function of a speaker’s communicative skill (Hymes, 1972) and ability to
effectively assess the nuances and expectations of a particular communicative situation (Kuiper
& Flindall, 2000). The ability to move smoothly back and forth between small talk and work talk
is also a key skill (Holmes, 2000c). Further, there is some latitude to defy context-based
parameters (e.g., extended social talk at the start of a meeting), which may be solely acceptable
for higher-status individuals in the workplace (Coupland, 2003).
Nonnative English Speakers Negotiating Social Conversation in the Workplace
Review of research on nonnative English speakers’ engagement in workplace small talk
indicates that these types of conversations are important for this unique population for several

35
reasons. First, small talk helps promote a sense of solidarity and signals belonging. Pullin’s
(2018) empirical study of nonnative English speakers using business English as a lingua franca
found small talk to be especially important for their ability to overcome language and cultural
differences and develop solidarity with their coworkers. Building solidarity and signaling
belonging in the workplace are important for nonnative English speakers to integrate
successfully into the work environment. This solidarity had the added benefit of reducing the
chances of having communication difficulties or addressing them effectively should they occur
(Pullin, 2010). In the study, positive small talk encounters that worked to build solidarity
centered around safe, but internationally relevant topics such as music and food which also
allowed for a non-threatening expression of personal identity (Pullin, 2010). Other studies
support music as an appropriate small talk topic (Meierkord, 2008; Schneider, 1987). Pullin
(2010) established that small talk worked to build solidarity amongst “different others” (p. 457)
in a corporate setting.
Closely related to promoting a sense of solidarity is small talk’s function of establishing,
maintaining, and strengthening relationships in the workplace, and is hence a key skill for
nonnative English speakers to acquire and develop (Holmes, 2000c). Collaborative and small
talk play a role in creating “linguistic bridges” (Thuessen, 2017, p. 937), allowing nonnative
speakers to build social capital in the workplace (Thuessen, 2017). A study of nonnative Englishspeaking female entrepreneurs found them deftly navigating their first language and English in
the workplace to achieve different ends (Collier, 2010). This researcher found that while their
first language was used primarily to address staff and issue directives, they navigated interactions
with customers in English. Further, the women employed small talk, including terms of
endearment, in English to build relationships with their customers, develop rapport, and

36
smoothly switch between social talk and task talk. These interactions had the added benefit of
allowing the entrepreneurs to practice speaking English and build their vocabulary (Collier,
2010).
Third, effective small talk helps enhance workers’ reputation and supports career
advancement. Impressions of competency in the workplace are a directly related to
communicative skill and behavior (Canary & Spitzberg, 1989; Young & Faux, 2011). Young and
Faux (2011) found that native speakers were often frustrated by the speech and communicative
behaviors of nonnative speakers, causing them to perceive them as less competent overall.
Patterns of Engagement in Workplace Social Conversation
Given the importance of small talk for nonnative speakers, it is helpful to understand
these workers’ patterns of engagement in workplace social conversation. Although nonnative
English speakers often navigate work-related conversations well, as they tend to be experts in
their field of work but need to learn about the social communication demands of the workplace
(Holmes, 2000c). Neeley et al. (2012) found nonnative English speakers reporting withdrawal
behaviors, including avoiding meetings and other situations where they were required to speak
English. Lack of confidence in one’s ability in a second language can manifest itself in
conversations as “hesitation, nervousness, self-correction, and extreme style-shifting” (Labov,
1966/2006, p. 322, as cited in in Lancereau-Forster & Martinez, 2011 p. 378). Studies in the
French context (Lancereau-Forster, 2013; Lancereau-Forster & Martinez, 2018) using English in
the workplace found reports of employees experiencing a “mental block” (p. 387) resulting in
their speaking only a little or not at all in certain situations (Lancereau-Forster & Martinez,
2018). Nonnative speakers engaging in small talk at work may use the cultural behaviors of their

37
first language, choose incorrect behaviors, or not communicate at all (Lancereau-Forster &
Martinez, 2011).
Other research has suggested that some workers readily engage in English speaking, even
if not their first language. For example, Pullin (2010) found native French speakers using BELF
in the workplace enjoyed learning and using English, were interested in learning about another
culture, and motivated to improve their English skills (Lancereau-Forster & Martinez, 2011).
Overall, more research is needed to better understand nonnative English speakers’ patterns of
engagement and disengagement as it pertains to small talk in the workplace.
Barriers to Workplace Social Conversations
Nonnative English-speaking professionals face a number of barriers to engaging in small
talk with their colleagues. Based on my work as a speech-language pathologist with this
population, these barriers include difficulties with comprehension, making themselves
understood, related vocabulary, and conversation speed. Further, they demonstrate apprehension
about their speech and language skills, unfamiliarity with the rules of small talk, and insufficient
knowledge of American society and culture.
Studies have found that nonnative English speakers “have the odds stacked against them”
(Pullin, 2010, p. 457) in workplace social conversations due to differing cultural backgrounds
and the challenges of working in an additional language (Pullin, 2010). Neeley et al.’s (2012)
study of multinational corporations instituting English as a lingua franca found nonnative
speakers reporting a “restricted and reduced” ability to communicate (p. 237). The source of
nonnative English speakers’ communication difficulties is multifactorial, and includes
difficulties with comprehension, expression, pronunciation, and lack of familiarity with English
colloquialisms and idioms.

38
Additionally, Rogerson-Revell (2008) found a linguistic imbalance wherein native
English speakers overpowered their nonnative English-speaking colleagues in conversations due
to their superior English language skills (as cited in Pullin, 2010). Neeley’s (2013) findings
support this, with nonnative speakers resenting native speakers’ and more linguistically adept
nonnative speakers’ fluency, which allowed them more control in meetings. Resentment directed
at colleagues with superior language skills was found predominantly in interpersonal
conversations, and reinforced existing conflicts (Tenzer & Pudelko, 2015).
The use of a second, or additional, language in the workplace also affects speakers’
attitudes which, in turn, alters their linguistic behaviors (Calvet, 2015; Lancereau-Forster &
Martinez, 2011). One of these attitudes is interlinguistic insecurity, or the nonnative English
speaker’s self-assessment of the gap between their English skills and the standard of English they
know to be correct or perceive used around them (Calvet, 1999, 2015; Francard, 1993/1994,
1997; Lancereau-Forster & Martinez, 2011). This concept was originally developed for
intralinguistic insecurity, by Labov (1966/2006), but it was Calvet (1999, p. 160) who expanded
it to take account of interlinguistic differences. The quantitative study of more than 600 French
professionals using BELF in a corporate environment found the presence of interlinguistic
insecurity, with the incidence greater in females than males, and in those with relatively less
formal education (Lancereau-Forster & Martinez, 2011). According to Pullin (2010),
interlinguistic insecurity encompasses attitudes or feelings and behaviors that affect participation
in workplace conversations in the second or additional language. These include foreign language
anxiety, fear of ridicule, feelings of inferiority, withdrawal, awareness of shortcomings, and
desire for improvement (Lancereau-Forster & Martinez, 2011).

39
Neeley (2013) highlighted the significant impact of foreign language anxiety on
nonnative speakers of English in the workplace, in that it can alter everyday behavior. A 2016
study of survey data from 320 Dutch professionals speaking English at work, Gargalianou et al.
found that foreign language anxiety exists, is affected by personality traits, and is more evident
in females. A study of 16 immigrant workers in New Zealand speaking English as a second
language discovered “fears and concerns in managing informal communication and relationships
in tea breaks, small talk situations, and in workplace practices concerning email” (Holmes, 2015,
p. 120). Studying the role of language in multinational corporations, Tenzer and Pudelko (2015),
highlighted that nonnative speakers of English who felt their English language skills were
inadequate, experienced feelings of “insecurity, embarrassment, and feeling threatened” (p. 612).
Pullen (2018) found foreign language anxiety in native French speakers using BELF that was
equal across genders for higher-educated workers (as cited in Lancereau-Forster & Martinez,
2011).
Young and Faux (2012) reported that during difficult conversations between native and
nonnative English speakers, the nonnative speakers blamed themselves for the communication
breakdown, versus the native English speakers who assigned blame equally. Nonnative speakers
also struggle to reveal their competence in a second language, with Neeley (2014) revealing
“childlike” feelings on their part (Neeley, 2014 as cited in Lancereau-Forster & Martinez, 2011,
p. 385), and impacting their work contributions. In their 2015 study of multinational
corporations, Tenzer and Pudelko established nonnative speakers to have feelings of
demonstrating weakness and lack of self-confidence when having task-related conversations in a
second language, extending to concerns that their language skills would result in lower
performance ratings. Similarly, Pullin (2010) found feelings of inferiority amongst nonnative

40
speakers of English in the workplace, based on the comparisons with others of greater ability or
with the conversations they are able to have in their native language, as well as a fear of being
ridiculed (Lancereau-Forster & Martinez, 2011).
The source of the communication difficulties experienced by nonnative English speakers
in the workplace can often be traced to pragmatic skills, rather than language ability (Clyne,
1994, p. 211). Holmes’ (2000c) findings support this as employers’ complaints center around the
challenges of nonnative speakers fitting in socially, appearing “unfriendly or uncomfortable” (p.
126), and not about their English ability. Further, in some cultures, small talk does not occur in
the workplace at all (Clyne, 1991). The rules around when and how small talk functions in the
workplace are also potential pitfalls for nonnative English speakers. Power dynamics must be
respected, with the higher-status participant deciding on the start and end of the small talk
interaction (Holmes, 2000c). Employing the correct tone and length of utterance, and appropriate
topics are also essential. The subtleties of the English language can also pose difficulties for
nonnative speakers. Holmes (2003) noted that common phrases such as “Let’s have lunch,
sometime” (p. 76) is affirming the interpersonal connection rather than a transactional request to
set a specific date for lunch, a subtlety that can be confusing for nonnative speakers. In the same
study, she concludes that nonnative English speakers have difficulty making small talk that has
the appropriate tone and length of utterance.
Lack of shared background knowledge and cultural differences in the appropriateness of
topics are barriers to nonnative English speakers’ participation in small talk in the workplace.
Native speakers have gained language and pragmatic skills and cultural knowledge over many
years and across a range of work and social conversational interactions (Holmes, 2000c).
Matching this depth and breadth of skill presents a communication challenge for nonnative

41
speakers in the workplace (e.g., Clyne 1991; Gumperz et al.,1979; Roberts et al., 1992; Thomas,
1983). Mak and Chui (2013) emphasized that small talk in the workplace serves as a key
indicator of appropriate behavior and successful socialization. While it provides opportunities for
newcomers to develop rapport or for existing employees to integrate newcomers into the
workplace, the non-universality of small talk may render such attempts a double-edged sword.
Miscommunications and awkward interactions can result from differences in background
knowledge, especially in instances where the native speaker incorrectly assumes shared
background knowledge (e.g., of a sports team or popular TV show) with the nonnative speaker
(Holmes, 2000c). In addition, rules around the giving of and response to compliments, a common
small talk topic, vary by culture (Chen 1993; Cordella et al., 1995; Herbert, 1989, 1991; Holmes
1986; Holmes & Brown, 1987; Jaworski, 1995; Manes, 1983; Pomerantz, 1978; YlanneMcEwen, 1993), representing another source of possible miscommunications.
Synthesis of the Literature
A substantial proportion of the Silicon Valley workforce consists of highly educated
nonnative English speakers who represent specialized talent. These individuals’ residency is
often tied to their employer, heightening the pressure to perform well despite intense time
pressure and extensive workloads. In addition to job pressures and the challenges of relocating to
a different country, these workers face additional stressors related to communicating effectively
in English. Language ability can ease stress and improve the sense of belonging and enjoyment
at work. While American coworkers may recognize nonnative English speakers’ technical
competence, language and cultural barriers often complicate social interactions such as small talk
or personal exchanges. In American culture, refraining from social engagement or neglecting
small talk is less common and may lead to unfavorable perceptions of the nonnative English

42
speaker. Accented language also sometimes triggers stereotypes and biases, further undermining
productive workplace relationships.
Although high-tech organizations sometimes provide language and cultural training to
support nonnative English-speaking employees, research on the effectiveness of these efforts is
limited. Onboarding and new hire programs aid transitions, but it remains unclear whether these
initiatives address language and cultural barriers comprehensively. Research is also lacking on
nonnative English speakers’ engagement in social conversations within high-tech workplaces,
even though these interactions have personal and professional benefits. Excessive workloads,
time pressures, and insecurity rooted in language barriers, fear of embarrassment, and lack of
cultural knowledge may discourage participation in small talk, which can be significantly careerlimiting. Researchers have encouraged organizations to foster supportive environments through
empathy-building programs, cross-lingual sensitivity training, and diversity initiatives that
address language and cultural differences. The present study builds on this literature by exploring
the lived experiences of nonnative English-speaking professionals in high-tech organizations,
focusing on their engagement in workplace small talk and the internal and external dynamics
shaping these interactions.
Conceptual Framework
The central concept of this study is social capital, which refers to the relational networks
that exist within the organization and enable workplace functioning (Bowles & Gintis, 2002).
Social capital is a measure of the value of tangible and intangible resources produced through
relationships. Specific to this study, it is proposed that informal workplace conversations build
social capital (Coupland, 2000; Holmes, 2000c). Through these conversations, shared identity,
understanding, norms, values, trust, cooperation, and reciprocity emerge. A worker’s social

43
capital affects their perceptions of social belonging, career satisfaction, and career progression
(Charles, 2008; Coupland, 2003; Holmes, 2000c).
An original conceptual framework (see Figure 1) was created for this study based on the
review of literature documented in this chapter. Based on the review, this framework, in
conjunction with the pragmatic worldview, underpins this study. The pragmatic paradigm of
inquiry is independent of any single underlying philosophy, although it recognizes that research
“always occurs in social, historical, political, and other contexts” (Creswell, 2018, p. 11). It is an
approach focused on practical solutions to real world problems and choosing the research
method that best addresses the research question (Creswell, 2018).
According to the conceptual framework, although both native and non-native speakers
bring to any given informal workplace conversation their unique conversational skills and
attitudes, non-native speakers face additional challenges, including language barriers,
interlinguistic insecurity, language-based discrimination, and cultural differences (Chen, 1993;
Hatzidaki et al., 2015; Holmes, 2000c; Lancereau-Forster & Martinez, 2011; Wilson &
Spaulding, 2010; Ylanne-McEwen, 1993). As a result, as native and non-native speakers engage
in these conversations, native speakers tend to produce more social capital, characterized by
social belonging, career satisfaction, career progression, and professional reputation. In contrast,
non-native speakers tend to attain fewer of these outcomes than their native speaking
counterparts through informal workplace conversations—whether due to having fewer
conversations, displaying lower adeptness in the conversations, or experiencing external barriers
(e.g., stereotyping, discrimination) during the conversations.

44
Figure 1:
Conceptual Framework
Note: Original framework created based on synthesis of literature
Summary
This chapter reviews the existing literature and provides the theoretical, cultural, and
practical foundations for this study. This analysis examines the important concepts of small talk,
workplace communication, and social capital. A synthesis of research findings explores the
intersection of language proficiency, cultural knowledge and communication practices and their
influence on nonnative speakers’ ability to engage in small talk and build social capital in the
workplace. Further, it highlights the systemic and structural barriers to effective workplace
communication, such as biases, power dynamics, and workplace norms. In identifying the
challenges faced by nonnative speakers, this chapter draws attention to the importance of
addressing these issues to foster more inclusive and equitable work environments.

45
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of nonnative English speakers
negotiating unscripted social conversations in high tech workplaces and the impact of unscripted
social conversations on the speakers’ abilities to build workplace social capital. This chapter
describes the research methods that will be used to conduct the present study, including a
restatement of the research questions, overview of the design, description of the research setting,
and acknowledgment of my positionality and background as the researcher. Procedures related to
recruiting and enrolling participants, instrumentation, data collection and analysis, and assuring
the study’s credibility and trustworthiness are outlined. Finally, the ethical considerations of this
study are explained.
Research Questions
1. What are the experiences of nonnative English speakers making small talk in hightech workplaces?
2. What are the barriers to non-native English speakers making small talk in high-tech
workplaces?
3. How, and in what ways, do experiences with informal communication (small talk) in
the workplace affect nonnative English language speakers’ ability to build social
capital?
Overview of Design
Qualitative research uses inductive reasoning to describe, examine, and interpret
problems through the lens of individual meaning (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Through the
collection of data in different forms, the researcher generates a comprehensive account of the
problem being examined (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The benefits of a qualitative research

46
design include flexibility, the opportunity to delve deeply into a problem, provide rich
description of phenomena, and incorporate the human experience (Rahman, 2017). The
limitations of a qualitative research design include the inability to determine causes and effects,
along with the absence of statistical validation of the data. Collection and analysis of data also
tend to be time-consuming. Moreover, because of the smaller sample size, data generalizability is
reduced, yielding the impression that the findings are less credible (Rahman, 2017).
A qualitative research design is appropriate for this study because I am seeking to
understand the informal conversational experiences and their consequences for nonnative
English language speakers in the workplace. This qualitative study adopts a narrative inquiry
approach, allowing for an in-depth exploration of participants' lived experiences and the
meanings they construct through their personal and professional narratives. Qualitative methods
allow a depth of inquiry to occur during the course of the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018),
yielding impressions of the depth and breadth of human experience in its most authentic form
(Brinkmann & Kvale, 2016). Moreover, the flexible, unfolding design characteristic of
qualitative designs will allow me to record the nuances of each participant’s experience and note
participants’ nonverbal language, and probes their thoughts and feelings in depth. Moreover, the
qualitative approach was considered appropriate for this study due to the lack of in-depth
literature about nonnative English speakers’ experiences with workplace social conversations.
Qualitative research has been identified as an appropriate method in such cases (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
Research Setting
Informal workplace social conversations, or small talk, play an important role in
signaling belonging, creating rapport, sharing information, improving productivity and

47
innovation, and fostering workplace social capital. However, nonnative English speakers
working at high technology companies in Silicon Valley are often reluctant to participate in or
effectively engage in such conversations (Chen, 1993; Hatzidaki et al., 2015; Holmes, 2000c;
Lancereau-Forster & Martinez, 2011; Wilson & Spaulding, 2010; Ylanne-McEwen, 1993).
These experiences leave nonnative speakers at a disadvantage compared to native Englishspeaking colleagues. This study focused on nonnative English speakers who are highly educated
and professionally driven, and representative of a significant proportion of the workforce in
Silicon Valley. These companies are known for open, collaborative, and innovatively designed
workspaces intended to foster informal encounters and cross-pollination among employees for
enhanced creativity and problem-solving. While similar in many ways to other corporate
workplaces, high technology companies likely have a larger percentage of nonnative English
speakers due to their reliance on foreign worker visas. These employees may also face greater
obstacles to small talk due to high-pressure work environments and long work hours.
Nonetheless, findings from this study are anticipated to have broader applicability to other
American corporate workplaces employing nonnative English speakers.
The sample for this study consisted of 11 nonnative English language speakers employed
by high technology companies in Silicon Valley, selected through purposeful sampling to ensure
they were information-rich cases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants were representative of
average technology industry employees who are nonnative English speakers, over age 18, and of
any gender, with at least 1 year of on-site professional experience in the United States. The
study’s credibility was enhanced by voluntary participation, alignment with the technology
sector, and my expertise as a speech-language pathologist familiar with the speech and language
differences of nonnative speakers. The research addressed the impact of the COVID-19

48
pandemic, which shifted most Silicon Valley employees to a work-from-home model,
significantly reducing informal social interactions. Participants recalled their pre-pandemic
workplace interactions while also considering how virtual work environments may have altered
the frequency and dynamics of small talk since March 2020.
Positionality
Numerous studies document the negative perceptions associated with accented speech
(Deprez‐Sims & Morris, 2010; Hansen et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2016), with some accents being
seen as preferable to others (Deprez-Sims & Morris, 2010). There are diverse communication
norms in various cultures, including different expectations based on gender. Language has the
power to include or exclude certain groups, which in a corporate environment has both social and
economic implications. For these reasons, the study focus is linked to issues of race, ethnicity,
national identity, class, and gender.
As an Executive Language Coach, my goal is to build leaders who can communicate
clearly and confidently in English. While I teach clients about small talk in the corporate
environment, they continue to face barriers to engaging effectively with their colleagues. My
positionality relates to my identities as female, Canadian, immigrant, native English speaker, and
educator. Being a Canadian immigrant offers perspective on discrimination, adjusting to a new
country, and the benefits of a multicultural nation. As a native English speaker and educator, I
serve as a speech and language model for clients, understand their communication difficulties,
and create a safe space for them to share their struggles. However, some of my identities
contribute to potential blind spots in addressing this problem. Cultural and religious norms can
dictate communication styles, particularly regarding male-female interactions. I may not fully
value the norms my clients are accustomed to or the biases they face with colleagues from other

49
countries. Reflexivity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) will be key to addressing these influences. I
wrote personal notes and memos to reflect on my experiences and their impact on my data, and
avoided backyard research by not including my own clients. I ensured I suspended judgment and
demonstrated respect for participants.
Data Sources
The purpose of qualitative research interviewing is to collect data by obtaining
participants' firsthand accounts of their experiences, perspectives, emotions, and knowledge
(Patton, 2015). Researchers use interviews to gather information about past events or phenomena
that cannot be observed directly, providing richly descriptive (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and
holistic (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) accounts. Semi-structured interviews are the most
frequently used type due to their flexibility, accessibility, and ability to reveal significant and
often concealed aspects of human and organizational behavior (Qu & Dumay, 2011; Rowley,
2012). They allow for conversational adjustments in question order, speed, and style, enabling
participants to share experiences, feelings, and opinions in their own words (Qu & Dumay,
2011). Despite being time-consuming, interviews are often practical and efficient for data
collection, requiring less a priori knowledge than questionnaire development (Rowley, 2012).
The researcher plays a critical role in qualitative interviewing, requiring a depth of knowledge to
ask relevant questions, build rapport, ensure confidentiality, and avoid bias (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Qu & Dumay, 2011). Reflexivity, inductive reasoning, and the ability to categorize data
into themes are essential to ensuring data relevance and credibility (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 1995).
Participants

50
The recommended sample size for a qualitative study is one that is relevant to the
research question (Miles et al., 2019). Moreover, the sample must produce rich information and
improve the data's non-statistical generalizability (Miles et al., 2019). Another key criterion for
sampling is drawing a sufficient number of participants so that saturation or redundancy is
reached, meaning that responses and themes are repeated such that no new information emerges
(Charmaz, 2006; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam & Tisdell, 2013;
Patton, 2015).
Creswell and Creswell (2018) recommend a sample size of 3-10 for phenomenological
studies, which most closely aligns with this study’s general qualitative approach. However,
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) assert that initial proposed sample sizes are estimates and should be
adjusted as the study proceeds. The authors recommend collecting and analyzing data
concurrently in order to recognize when saturation has been reached. The present study utilized a
sample of eleven participants to adequately address the research question, reach saturation, and
adhere to time constraints.
Selection Criteria
Participants in this study were required to satisfy four selection criteria: (a) the participant
immigrated to the United States for employment, (b) the participant worked in a professional
capacity for more than 1 year onsite at a high technology company in Silicon Valley, (c) the
participant is a nonnative English language speaker, and (d) the participant can carry on a
conversation in English. The requirement to have worked onsite for at least 1 year addresses the
work-from-home and hybrid situations for high technology companies since March 2020, due to
the coronavirus pandemic. Participants needed to have experience working onsite, as working

51
from home and participating in virtual meetings do not provide the same opportunities for
informal workplace social conversations.
The general population is the largest group of possible participants, namely, nonnative
English speakers working at any high technology company in Silicon Valley. The target
population is a refinement to this, including only participants who do not have any attributes that
violate the study’s goals and are able to describe their opinions and experiences clearly and with
adequate detail. In this case, the target population consisted of nonnative English speakers
working at any high technology company in Silicon Valley, in a professional capacity, onsite for
at least 1 year. The final stage of refinement produces the accessible population, which removes
those unable or unwilling to participate during the period of data collection. The study’s
accessible population is the basis for sampling (Asiamah, 2017).
This study used a purposeful sampling approach of convenience, criterion, and snowball
(also called network) sampling strategies to generate a sample of information-rich cases.
Whereas convenience sampling involves relying upon one’s personal and professional network
to identify participants, criterion sampling involves assuring that participants possess needed
characteristics, and network sampling involves asking qualifying participants to suggest
additional participants. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted that network sampling is the most
frequently used approach. Network sampling offers advantages such as improved access to
participants who otherwise would have been unavailable, ease of identification of participants in
the target group, and reduced time needed for participant recruitment as compared to other
methods. Disadvantages include the researcher’s loss of control over the sampling approach and
the potential for sampling bias, as participants may refer those similar to themselves, thereby
limiting the portion of the population access. Finally, researchers using the network sampling

52
approach must be mindful of the ethical requirement of confidentiality and have potential
participants step forward.
Selection Procedures
I contacted current clients, former clients, and acquaintances via my University of
Southern California (USC) email (see Appendix A) to find potential study participants. The
email described the study, solicited their participation, and asked them to forward the invitation
to others. When a study candidate contacted me, the consent information was reviewed,
participant concerns were addressed, and assurances of confidentiality were given. The screening
also included an informal, conversational assessment of the adequacy of the potential
participant’s English language ability as it related to the goals of the study. If the candidate
agreed and satisfied the selection criteria, they were scheduled for an interview date and time.
The informed consent form (see Appendix B) was sent, with the request that the participant
review, sign, and return it in advance of the interview. Participants were compensated with a $25
Amazon gift card for their participation in this study.
Instrumentation
The type of interview questions used in a qualitative study depends on the degree of
structure of the interview. This study employed a semi-structured approach, with a mix of
closed- and open-ended questions in a somewhat flexible order (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Semi-structured interview questions are based on themes of interest posed in a consistent and
systematic manner (Rowley, 2012), with probes to delve deeper into items of interest. Interview
questions are also influenced by the researcher’s underlying philosophy or disciplinary
orientation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) as well as by researcher practice or experience in their

53
field (Rowley, 2012). The study’s theoretical framework also informs the interview questions
drawn in part from other published studies.
Qu and Dumay (2011) maintain that semi-structured interviews involve a complex
interplay between interviewer and participant, producing transcripts that reflect context-specific
accounts with no universally correct approach, interview format, or question phrasing Semistructured interviews typically begin with introductory questions to build rapport and trust with
the participant and explain the research's purpose (Qu & Dumay, 2011). Subsequent questions
take different forms but are intended to elicit a rich description of the phenomenon under study,
with follow up probes used to elicit elaboration.
The interview questions and script should be tested prior to administration by having
experienced researchers review the protocol and piloting it with sample participants (Rowley,
2012). Yeong et al. (2018) emphasized that interview protocols must be vetted to ensure validity,
reliability, and facilitate quality data collection within the interview timeframe. Specifically,
Yeong et al. recommended using a four-step process of developing the protocol, wherein
interview questions are aligned with research questions, everyday language is used, feedback on
the questions is sought from experienced researchers, and the protocol is pilot tested. This
approach to piloting the questions helps increase the validity and reliability of the interview
protocol.
The interview questions used in this study (see Appendix C) were developed to elaborate
on and provide support to existing research, address the study’s research questions, and identify
the impact on social capital development and maintenance. The interview protocol contained 18
questions organized into two categories: background information on participants’ language
learning, immigration, and career; communicative experiences, feelings of belonging, and

54
beneficial relationships in the workplace. I practiced the interview protocol with colleagues to
assess question clarity, sequencing, and timing and refine it accordingly (Farooq & de Villiers,
2017).
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection begins with purposeful sampling, identifying sites and participants best
suited to the study's goals (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For this study, data were collected using
interviews, which are conversations wherein interviewers serve as the primary research
instrument (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008). Interviewers must possess
skills such as active listening, note-taking, planning, and preparation (Qu & Dumay, 2011;
Rowley, 2012), along with a genuine respect for participants’ perspectives and a commitment to
understanding their responses (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Developing rapport is critical to eliciting
rich descriptions, as is awareness of positionality and potential biases (Farooq & de Villiers,
2017; Qu & Dumay, 2011). Data collected through interviews are not objective (Fontana & Frey,
1998) and require reflexivity to account for the interviewer’s role in data interpretation (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018).
Interviews were 60 minutes in length, with additional time planned for question
clarification, given the sample of 11 nonnative English speakers. Interviews were conducted via
one-on-one video calls, leveraging participants' familiarity with this technology due to its use in
work since March 2020. Video calls facilitate scheduling efficiency, establish rapport, allow
observation of some body language, and provide clarification support via chat. Before each
interview, video software and internet connectivity were tested to ensure seamless data collection
(Farooq & de Villiers, 2017). Video recordings and transcripts created through the software
captured interview data, supplemented by notes on follow-up questions, nonverbal cues, and

55
personal observations. After each interview, notes were reviewed and consolidated, and any
necessary adjustments to the protocol were considered (Burke & Miller, 2001; Glogowska et al.,
2011; Hermanowicz, 2002).
Data Analysis Procedures
Data analysis involves coding the data and then creating a description of the data and
themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Transcripts of interview data can take the form of verbatim
accounts, notes taken during the interview, or notes taken after the interview, with verbatim
accounts forming the best data for analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study relied on the
interview data's verbatim transcripts, supplemented by my notes taken during and after the
interview. The transcripts were created automatically by the video conferencing software. I
reviewed all transcripts for accuracy and made corrections as needed. Review of the transcripts
was an especially important step, as the study participants were nonnative English speakers,
some with accented speech, thus increasing the probability of errors in the automated
transcription. The transcription procedure was piloted when I piloted the interview protocol prior
to administration to study participants.
The transcripts were stored password-protected on my computer, and written notes were
stored in a locked filing cabinet in my home office. Written notes were stored in my home office
in a locked filing cabinet. Each transcript was analyzed as the data were collected to determine
when data saturation was reached. Sechelski and Onwuegbuzie (2019) identify 34 different
approaches to analyzing qualitative data and suggest researchers use multiple methods to achieve
analysis saturation and a greater understanding of the data. Thematic analysis of the data was
appropriate for this study’s research paradigm, research design, and data, as this method provides
an accessible and theoretically flexible approach to analyzing qualitative data (Braun & Clarke,

56
2006). Specifically, it is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes)
with data, allowing rich description and interpretation of the research questions (Braun & Clarke,
2006).
The purpose of thematic analysis is to provide a rich and detailed, yet complex, account
of data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). They outlined six key steps or phases of thematic analysis,
beginning with becoming familiar with the data, creating initial codes, determining themes,
reviewing those themes, defining and naming themes, and then writing the final report. The
benefits of thematic analysis include its flexibility; accessibility to novice researchers; and
abilities to produce rich description of the data and unexpected insights, to produce results for the
educated public, and to inform policy (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The limitations of the thematic
approach are that the breadth of possible data interpretations can be difficult to narrow down.
There is also a potential for limited data interpretation if analysis is not paired with a theoretical
framework, and the approach is not formally defined as a method of data analysis (Braun &
Clarke, 2006).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility, or internal validity, is the extent to which research findings match or are
congruent with reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research refers
to the reader's overall confidence in the researcher’s findings (Stahl & King, 2020) and is based
on four criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). Establishing credibility, transferability, and dependability in turn establishes
confirmability.
One credibility concern for this study is that study participants worked fully remotely
during COVID, followed by a hybrid return to office model by the time interviewing

57
commenced. There was a concern that they would have difficulty accurately recalling their
experiences with in-person workplace social conversations, given the length of time that had
elapsed since being in the office. Secondly, as the target population was nonnative English
speakers, there was concern about their ability to accurately comprehend the questions being
asked and accurately convey their thoughts and opinions. A further concern related to credibility
was the researcher’s lack of prolonged engagement with the target population, potentially
compromising her understanding of the data (Stahl & King, 2020). Finally, in terms of
transferability and overall trustworthiness, this study was limited to professionals working at
high technology companies in Silicon Valley, and the results may not be readily applicable to
other environments.
Reflexive auditing was used to increase dependability and, by extension, the study's
overall trustworthiness. A log to document involvement and observations, provide detailed
descriptions of data collection methods and coding and other decisions made throughout the
period of the study was maintained (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Stahl & King, 2020). Moreover,
trustworthiness of the results was enhanced given that I have 15 years of experience as a speechlanguage pathologist, with six years working closely with this population (Stahl & King, 2020).
The ethics of the researcher are paramount for the trustworthiness of the study, especially their
expertise, professional background, and dedication to scholarly rigor (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
The University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversaw the
study. I also consulted the code of ethics for the American Speech-Language and Hearing
Association (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Every participant was required to review and sign a
consent form (see Appendix B) before participating in the study. The consent form featured

58
straightforward, everyday language, in an approachable tone, and was free of jargon (Sieber &
Tolich, 2015). The consent form was reviewed with participants at the pre-interview screening if
they were deemed eligible for the study. The consent form was reviewed in detail, and they were
able to ask questions and have any information clarified. The consent form was emailed to
participants who signed it and returned it to me via email.
Participants were recruited on a voluntary basis and had the consent form reviewed with
them in detail. They were informed of the requirement for their ongoing consent and that they
could choose to terminate their involvement with the study at any time (Sieber & Tolich, 2015).
There is limited risk of coercion, as I do not work for any of the participants’ employers and
participants were only selected from former, not current, clients. Process consent, wherein the
researcher confirms participant consent periodically throughout the study as the research design
emerges (Sieber & Tolich, 2015), was maintained for the duration of the study. Participants had
the option to withdraw from the study at any time or decline to answer any question.
Participants’ answers were video recorded and automatically transcribed via video
conferencing software. Data were deidentified by masking all personal identifiers, including
name, place of employment, and specific job title. Participants’ written consent to video record
and transcribe the data was obtained. All files were deidentified, password protected, and safely
stored on my personal computer. Only I have access to the data in its original format, including
the individual video recorded data. My dissertation committee members have access to the
deidentified written transcripts of the interviews to assist and approve my work. Participants’
identities were maintained in the strictest confidence through the exclusive use of deidentified
data for all personal information, including name, place of employment, and specific job title.
Signed consent forms were password protected and stored on the researcher’s personal computer.

59
Data and consent forms will be kept for five years, in accordance with American Psychological
Association (APA) guidelines (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Summary
The purpose of this generic qualitative study is to examine the experiences of nonnative
English speakers negotiating unscripted social conversations in high tech workplaces and the
impact of unscripted social conversations on the speakers’ perception of their ability to build
workplace social capital. This chapter described the research methods that were used to conduct
the study. Eleven nonnative English speaking professional-level employees of Silicon Valley
high technology organizations were recruited. Each participant participated in a 60-minute
videoconference interview, wherein they were asked about their language learning, immigration,
and career as well as about their communicative experiences, feelings of belonging, and
beneficial relationships in the workplace. The data were examined using thematic analysis as
described by Braun and Clarke (2006).

60
Chapter Four: Findings
This study evaluated the experiences of nonnative English language speakers navigating
social conversations (small talk) in high technology workplaces. This chapter outlines the
research participants, interview results, and findings. The study addressed the following research
questions:
1. What are the experiences of nonnative English speakers making small talk in high
tech workplaces?
2. What are the barriers to nonnative English speakers making small talk in high tech
workplaces
3. How, and in what ways, do experiences with informal communication (small talk) in
the workplace affect nonnative English language speakers' ability to build workplace
social capital?
Participants
The study sampled 11 nonnative English language speakers working in high technology
companies in Silicon Valley. The study participants were all born outside of the United States of
America, reported learning English as a second language, and had worked on site at a high
technology company in Silicon Valley, California for more than 1 year. Six of the 11 participants
were female and five were male. Six of the 11 participants were individual contributors and five
were managers, with two of the five managers being female. All participants had Bachelor’s
degrees, with nine having a Masters level degree, and one a PhD. First languages of the
participants were Mandarin, Russian, Korean, Spanish, German, and Japanese. Table 1 provides
an overview of the participants’ pseudonyms, gender, first language, educational attainment, and
company role. Additional demographic information such as age, immigration status, and other

61
personal details were not collected to ensure participant privacy and maintain the confidentiality
of their contributions. The use of pseudonyms in place of names provided participants and their
organizations anonymity and allowed for reflection on and analysis of their experiences
navigating workplace social conversations and the role of corporate culture.
Table 2
Demographic Information of Participants
Pseudonym Gender L1 Education Role
Anna Female Mandarin Masters Manager
Barbara Female Russian Masters Non-Manager
Charles Male Russian Masters Non-Manager
David Male Korean Masters Non-Manager
Elaine Female Spanish Masters Manager
Fiona Female Mandarin Bachelor’s Non-Manager
George Male German Doctorate Manager
Hailey Female Mandarin Masters Non-Manager
Ingrid Female Mandarin Masters Non-Manager
Jacob Male Korean Masters Non-Manager
Keith Male Japanese Bachelor’s Manager
Findings Research Question One

62
The study examined the experiences of nonnative English speakers negotiating unscripted
social conversations in high tech workplaces and the impact of unscripted social conversations
on the speakers’ abilities to build workplace social capital. Research Question One sought an in
depth understanding of the participants’ experiences making small talk in the workplace. This
section describes those experiences, and the three key themes that emerged: (a) difficulties and
negative experiences with small talk, (b) preference for work talk over small talk, and (c) malefemale dynamics and informal role models.
Difficulties and Negative Experiences With Small Talk
All eleven participants expressed some degree of difficulty making small talk in the
workplace. Many of the participants noted that making small talk made them nervous, anxious
and uncomfortable, with five of 11 sometimes avoiding making small talk. Describing an
interaction with a colleague, Ingrid stated “So before the meeting he kind of like start some small
talking that I quickly answered his question then I said okay, let's back to work. I feel nervous.”
Others claimed making small talk was stressful and frustrating, as Keith explained “I want to
speak more with American and other guys, but I couldn't. So if I couldn't express my feeling and
I couldn't express what I want to say … so this situation is very frustrating to me.” Others noted
the additional cognitive load of speaking in English and the associated fatigue with making small
talk. Jacob described this effort, “It makes it easy to tire. Yes. Your brain gets tired.” Keith
echoed this sentiment, “But, so honestly speaking, it is not easy to have usual English
conversation also because, yeah, our brain is exhausted every time to translate from English to
Japanese, Japanese to English.”
Participants also expressed difficulty with the English language itself, specifically
searching for words, unfamiliar vocabulary, and making grammatical errors. George noted, “It's

63
still a second language to me. So sometimes I'm searching for words. Probably some grammar
mistakes.” This difficulty was expressed even by participants highly proficient in English, as
Elaine claimed:
So, my English I think it was pretty advanced. But again, it was hard for me to make a
conversation. I just couldn't. I think the main reason for that is that I knew enough
English to know that when I was speaking, I was making mistakes. And so instead of just
saying things, knowing that I was making a mistake I would withhold.
Related to English proficiency, a number of participants described being self-conscious about
their accents. George reported, “I was not able to get rid of the German accent in 3 years.” Elaine
described feeling invalidated by colleagues’ comments about her accent. “The first thing they say
is ‘Oh, where are you from? That's a cute accent.’ So just already diminishes your power as an
executive. So that is a huge challenge.” Ingrid explained that her accent can make it difficult for
colleagues to understand what she is saying, “When I talk, the most difficult for me is when
people say ‘Can you say that again?’ … But that hurts me a lot. And I will just back off, right,
stop talking.”
Many participants further identified difficulties due to their unfamiliarity with the rules of
small talk. In terms of entering a conversation in progress, Elaine described, “It's not natural. It
doesn't come natural to me. Just how to insert yourself in that conversation. Right?” Others
reported conversational timing, appropriateness of laughter, and which topics are acceptable to
discuss in the workplace as areas of difficulty. Keith reported asking his English tutor about
appropriate small talk topics, “So the topics for usual conversation is different. Very different. So
how to say, taboo? So I understand what topics is taboo for American.” Jacob discussed a rule he
has for determining appropriate topics, “So I try to wait. If they ask first, after that, I can ask.

64
That's my kind of policy.” Participants also discussed struggling with the nuanced timing of
small talk interactions and difficulty holding the interest of “big personalities” in the workplace.
Barbara concluded that making small talk is a skill Americans have honed, “I think it's cultural,
absolutely cultural. If you're American you get used to those talks. You know what to ask, you
know how to answer.”
Each of the eleven participants identified a lack of knowledge of American culture as
contributing to their difficulties making small talk. American cultural references to sports,
popular television shows and movies, holidays, travel, and current events are often unfamiliar to
nonnative English speakers and those new to living and working in the United States. Fiona
offered, “You're talking about unfamiliar topics. I mean, if say someone asked me about baseball
or football I don't know anything.” Keith echoed this sentiment, “These conversation needs to
have many information in America, for example, American football, baseball, and politic and
hobby information, all the American life.” Ingrid expressed her frustration with the
pervasiveness of small talk in the workplace and her lack of knowledge about common topics:
Living here is so different. And I think for me the difficult part is to have a social small
conversation every time you have a meeting. You meet with new people, meet the team.
You talk about the weathers talk about the sport, talk about the show you watch but I
don't have that. I have no clue about the football, hockey, and then the only thing I can
talk about is the traffic and the weather.
Charles related that he often feels excluded from workplace small talk because of his lack of
knowledge of American culture:

65
I saw many people chat with coffee, like in the hallways. Sometimes I tried to join there.
I cannot join longer because I don't have too much background on the topic. I just listen
10 to 15 minutes then go back to my desk.
The participants’ experiences demonstrate that their challenges with workplace small talk are a
combination of language skills, cultural differences, and social dynamics.
Preference for Work Talk Over Small Talk
The sentiment across nine of the 11 participants was that talking about work “work talk”
was far easier than making small talk. In contrast to small talk, work talk has context, a familiar
and shared vocabulary, and supporting materials in the form of written reports, charts, or graphs.
It is also unambiguously appropriate in a work setting. In discussing communication breakdowns
with his software engineer colleagues who spoke many different first languages, Charles
reported, “But I will tell you, especially when we speak about something technical, that's usually
not an issue because like we mostly share the same vocabulary.” Keith, in his finance role, felt
similarly:
So, actually, for me, it is easier to speak with an American about my working, about
Finance. My colleagues is very friendly and kind and they try to understand what I say
every time. And so I'm a finance guy. So finance rules and ways of thinking are the same
all over the world.
In their senior management roles, Anna and Elaine both preferred work talk over small talk.
Elaine discussed the ease of work talk even in social situations, “When there's an offsite then it's
just easier to just talk about work and how this company is doing versus the other.” Anna felt
similarly:

66
I'm definitely more comfortable talking about work stuff, because I feel like then it's
productive that we're talking about something related to work. Small talk or like nonwork related talk. I basically have to make a conscious effort to do that. For the sake of
building the more personal connection with people.
Related to this preference for work talk amongst the participants was that the expectation for
them to make small talk often required extra preparation on their parts. Barbara reflected, “I
think work is more easy than small talk when I start my life in US, because you're always
prepared when you get working into a meeting. So small talk is a little bit difficult.” Similarly,
Ingrid claimed:
You really have to pay attention and then try to memorize the stuff, right? So before
when I first come here, I was getting nervous every time I need to have a meeting with
supplier, especially management or executive. I want to make sure I prepare for small
talk. Sometimes you prepare for your agenda, but for me as a English second language, I
need to prepare for small talk as well.
Jacob discussed the nature of his preparation for small talk, “For example, before the meeting, I
searching some details about the related area, some news, weather, sports events. And I research
the meeting attendees’ background, for example, when he graduated or something like that.”
Hailey also noted researching people prior to a meeting, “I will just check the person I'm going
to meet, their background … and then find some relation between me and the people I'm going to
meet.” For many participants, preparation takes the form of planning what they will say about
specific topics. Hailey recounted, “You spend a minute or two thinking about the NBA game or
where you hiked on the weekend.” For scheduled team check-in meetings, Charles revealed that
he prepares for the topic of the week, “Because for example if today's agenda is some TV show,

67
and I prepared something unrelated it'll be awkward, like if I’m just chatting something
completely different.” Barbara reported ongoing preparation and learning for small talk
conversations by, “watching movies with subtitles, and trying to memorize the new expressions.
To this day, I learned a lot on a daily basis. Sometimes I hear unknown to me, expressions or
idioms that I'm not familiar with.” Overall, participants preferred work talk to small talk as work
talk has a shared context and vocabulary and requires less preparation. Small talk, in contrast,
often required research on people, anticipated topics, or American culture.
Male-Female Dynamics and Informal Role Models
All five female participants discussed the additional challenges of making small talk in
the male-dominated high technology industry. Fiona summarized the situation, “Because I think
the conversations are different, like you know, like male to male, female to female, male to
female, right? I think the topics and stuff are very different.” The topics men discuss are often
unfamiliar to their female colleagues. Elaine reported difficulty talking to male colleagues about
sports, “Oh, how are the baseball game and the football game and so on? It's even now I’m in a
situation like that. I don't know what to say, so it's hard.” Anna reflected on an earlier role in
Sales:
When I first started at Company A, I did Sales and that's all the guys talked about
drinking or golf or whatever. I'm like, I don't even know how to chime in or what small
talk is like, what questions should I be asking or what's appropriate and not appropriate? I
even took golf lessons trying to get into golf so that I can hang out or have something to
talk to them about.
Fiona also discussed feeling excluded by male colleagues talking about their hobbies and
interests, “People who may be smoking or drinking and, you know, collections or collecting

68
stuff, right? Like there are conversations that are tailored around that, and sometimes these small
talks can make a person feel excluded.”
Female participants reported being further impacted by their male colleagues’ larger,
more aggressive presences and style of speech. Commenting on the men on the Sales team in a
high growth tech startup, Elaine noted, “A lot of them are very intimidating. They speak loud.
They have big personalities.” She went on to say that made conversations with them difficult,
specifically:
They tend to not pay attention to anything that doesn't give them something in return. So
finding what to say to keep them engaged and to find ways for them to listen to you,
because you need information from them at some point, was hard.
Also problematic for the majority of the women interviewed were typical male vocabulary and
use of slang. They reported being confused in terms of its meaning as well as appropriateness of
use both for the male colleague and themselves. Ingrid related, “So you cannot talk with
someone who say “Dude”. That's not maybe right, but I was like, is that a proper language for
both male and female? Probably not.” She continued with an example:
He said ‘Thank you, big dog’. And I was like, wow, that's an insult. … Big Dog in
Taiwan is a big no, no. I never learned that from my school. I never learned that from
ESL. This is something I learn on a daily basis. I was shock.
In contrast to the male-female conversation dynamic, many participants discussed the
skilled and nuanced use of small talk by some of their colleagues and managers. Hailey noted
that some senior leaders tailor their small talk with her, “They usually ask ‘How's your family?
How's your kids? You move to your house? Do you feel settled down?’, those kinds of topics.
They are very friendly and pick topic based on different audience.” Fiona shared similar

69
experiences, “Because a lot of leaders or U.S. team member, they are very good at the small talk.
So when they talk to me, they will use a different topic.” Keith also reported that his manager
was skilled at facilitating small talk with him, “My boss is very good person, very kind person.
He leads every time the conversation. ‘So what do you think about this?’ He facilitates it. Mainly
we were talking about our family and our hobby.” Participants found that skilled colleagues and
managers could tailor their small talk to make it more inclusive. Female participants noted that
small talk was more difficult to navigate with male colleagues, where they were less familiar
with the topics of conversation, more aggressive conversational style, and slang.
Findings Research Question Two
Research Question Two examined the barriers faced by nonnative English speakers
making small talk in high technology workplaces. This section provides an in-depth analysis of
those barriers. In addition to the difficulties with small talk outlined in Research Question One,
three key themes emerged from the participants’ experiences: (a) cultural differences, (b)
corporate culture and workload, and (c) COVID and remote work policies.
Cultural Differences
Although ubiquitous in the United States, ten of the 11 study participants reported that
small talk does not occur in the workplace in their country of origin. Participants’ lack of
knowledge of and experience with making small talk in the workplace are barriers to their
participation in it. David reported, “In the Korean-people meeting there is no small talk before
starting the meeting. We check the people to join, and then we start just so you can actually be
on time.” Ingrid also recounted “When I worked at a local Taiwanese company, you don't talk
about anything other than work.”

70
Preserving one’s dignity and reputation by not making mistakes or admitting not knowing
something was another cultural difference raised by participants. Hailey reported her difficulties
making small talk for this reason, “I was very nervous because I don't know. And in Chinese
culture, we don't want to show that I don't know. For me, if I say ‘I don't know that’, it’s like
disability or something.” In describing her manager, who was from China, making small talk
before a meeting, Anna said:
When it’s in an English environment, I think she just clams up a little bit more because
she's like, ‘Oh, I need to make sure I present myself well.’ And also, sometimes it's
harder. It's harder for her to chime in, because it feels like there's a flow of conversation
and if the language doesn't allow her to be speaking right away or chime in right away, it
seems like you're missing those moments to jump in.
Further, in some cultures it is not appropriate to share personal information at work.
Barbara noted, “In my culture you're not supposed to share your personal details at work because
at work it is not relevant whether they're married, or have kids, or where I live. Like, why would
I share that?” Jacob expressed a similar sentiment, “For me, I prefer to not to ask that kind of
personal thing to others because I'm not sure if they are comfortable with that kind of question.”
In commenting on her foreign colleagues' reluctance to participate in small talk, Barbara noted:
I think it's cultural, absolutely cultural. So if you're American you get used to those talks.
So you know what to ask, you know how to answer. But I have some [foreign]
colleagues, they're more like closed up. So they don't want to do small talks. Or they,
again, don't share details, any details.
Many participants also related that due to the hierarchical nature of company structure in
their country of origin, it is unheard of to share personal information with one’s superiors. David

71
stated, “In Korean company, there's a hierarchy. We feel nervous or feel uncomfortable to talk
about ourselves to our boss and to our colleagues.” This sentiment was echoed by Ingrid
describing working in China, “Your manager doesn't know personal information about you or
your husband or kids or they don't, it's not really shared.”. Barbara’s situation working in eastern
Europe was similar, “And also I wouldn't share anything personal with my boss.” Prior to
moving to the United States for work, many of the participants had no experience with small talk
in the workplace. Due to the cultural practices of their home countries, interactions at work were
focused solely on work-related matters and hierarchical structures made sharing personal
information inappropriate.
Workload and Corporate Culture
Heavy and unrelenting workload demands also present barriers to nonnative English
language speakers, as well as to their English-speaking colleagues, making small talk at work.
All participants noted high workloads and work environments that are “tough, intense, and
challenging”. Across all participants, workdays were between 12 and 14 hours, with “back-toback meetings” and regular overseas calls into the evening hours. Charles recounted routinely
feeling spent at the end of a work day “I feel completely exhausted because I have to think really
the whole day and like doing something laser focused. And when I step out I don't have like, any
more cognitive abilities to do anything”. The nature of their workloads often leaves little time to
make small talk at work. David related, “It's tough for me because I feel I work every day, every
time from morning to night. There's no time, less time to talk with my colleagues.”
Contributing to corporate performance expectations and work pressure are the highlyintelligent, highly-qualified colleagues participants work with. High technology companies in

72
Silicon Valley are known for their extremely competitive hiring processes and only hiring the
best of the best in their respective fields. Charles described his coworkers:
I always feel surrounded by geniuses. They're so brilliant and there is so much I can learn
from them. And I just always hope that okay, I really hope I'm close to this level, but in
my eyes, they look like super brilliant people.
Further contributing to workload demands are the uber-competitive nature of the high
technology industry and the breakneck speed at which it moves. The economic ups and downs of
the industry mean that during difficult times, work pressure is greater, and small talk suffers.
Barbara reported that since layoffs were announced at rival high technology companies, “The
corporate culture has changed and from now on it's strictly business. Like, they might not even
ask you, ‘How are you?’ and just go right into the agenda.” She elaborated on the impact of the
downturn in the technology business cycle:
So that's why people are very distant, right? because of the work pressure. Everyone is so
stressed out; everyone is so nervous. Everyone feels insecure of losing their jobs, so they
try to maximize the time in the meeting, to make sure they get done as much as possible.
Like no time for talks, time for small talk anymore.
The corporate culture at the team level, as influenced by one’s direct manager, also
emerged as either a barrier or facilitator of small talk opportunities in the workplace. Eight of 11
participants claimed their managers’ actions influence the amount and nature of small talk. Ingrid
noted that whether or not there is an opportunity for teams to make small talk depends on their
manager:
I'm lucky all my manager, they will ask you a personal life. They were taking care of
you, asking how things are going besides work first, and then they talk about work. But I

73
heard some of my coworker was complaining their manager will go straight to do the
work and doesn't care about other stuff.
Charles related that his manager has a standing agenda item to promote small talk, “Every
Monday we have so called Team Coffee Chat. It's just our team, just a half an hour and we just
speak about different things like video games, TV shows, plans for vacation, etc.” Anna noted
that it is important for a manager to have genuine interest in their staff when they make small
talk or the results can be the opposite of what is intended. In discussing her foreign-born,
nonnative English speaking manager she said:
I think the intent of small talk is important too. A lot of times people will try to emulate
American culture. For example, if I have a meeting with my manager and my team, she's
their boss's boss. She's very senior, and she'll try to have small talk, but the team can
immediately tell if she's doing it just because they know that she knows it's something
she's supposed to do versus if she's genuinely interested in them. So I think if there is no
genuine intent of building that human connection, then the small talk doesn't really work.
The intensity of the high technology industry and the resulting high-pressure, high-workload
work environments often leaves little time for participants to engage in small talk in the
workplace. Managers’ efforts to schedule and support small talk worked to mitigate this, but
their intent needed to be perceived as genuine.
COVID-19 and Remote Work Policies
The impact of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and associated work-from-home / remote
work policies on high technology corporate culture and norms have been significant. In the early
days of the pandemic, high technology companies in Silicon Valley rapidly pivoted to a remote
work model. More than 4 years later, the majority of high technology companies, and those

74
where this study’s participants work, are operating on a hybrid work model, requiring employees
to work 3 days in office and 2 days remote, although individual teams may be able to work fully
remote at their manager’s discretion. The gradual return to office has been met with considerable
resistance from employees, and Anna, a manager, reported that at her company, “Since COVID
people don't want to go into the office at all. Even at 3 days a week there's still a lot of arm
twisting.” Work weeks for technology employees are currently flexible, but fragmented, without
set days or hours required in office, although Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays in office
and Mondays and Fridays remote is common. Nine of 11 participants described preferring and
choosing to work in the office 5 days per week, and Jacob noted, “Most of expatriate like me,
They are going every day to the office.” Charles recounted the benefits of being in the office
every day, “I still enjoy going to the office. I feel like I can be more productive and have more
focus. And last but not least, they have great, free meals.” Fiona likes the communication
benefits of working in person, “Face time is super important to me, right? Because I feel like
when you see the person it's easier to kind of have direct conversations.”
With the current hybrid work model, high technology offices are operating far from
capacity on any given work day, which reduces opportunities for in person socializing and small
talk. Compared with pre-COVID office culture, participants described that in addition to fewer
people being in the office, everyone is spending more time alone and is operating on a more
individualized schedule. That schedule includes arriving and leaving at staggered times and on
different days, eating lunch on individual schedules, as well as leaving right after work rather
than going out for drinks or dinner as was common before COVID. Keith contrasted the current
in-office situation with offices in Japan where everyone eats lunch at the same time from 12 to
1pm, the “lunchtime Sabbath”, explaining why he does not eat lunch with his American

75
colleagues, “Some people go to restaurant for lunch, some people go back home, some people
who goes to gym, some people who doesn't eat lunch at that time. Honestly speaking, I do not try
to have lunches with my colleagues.” Charles also reported rarely eating lunch with his
colleagues, “I don't think people can have lunch together that often. Just having a look around
and I can tell if you simply look at the data you see just people like on their phones.” George
confirmed the reduced social interactions and small talk since COVID, “So the COVID situation
and everybody working from home and just having online meetings, that changed a lot because
you don't have these small talks at the coffee machine or when you run into a colleague in the
hallway.” Barbara echoed the same sentiments, “But in terms of personal connections, of course,
it is way more difficult because everyone was remote. So you just cannot run into people in the
office in the hallway. So you had to specifically like set up time with them.” David contributed
that people do not stay around after work, “People go to their business. Some of them go by
shuttle buses, and some of them go by car, but I didn't see people together. They just leave one
by one.” Further contributing to the reduction in workplace social interactions, Charles noted that
COVID is an ongoing concern for some of his colleagues, “That's why they stay at home, and
sometimes they show up on the opposite days or like always wear the masks and like trying to be
away from other people.”
Small talk before, during, and after meetings also changed significantly with COVID and
the move to online or virtual meetings. Although work was completely virtual during COVID, all
participants relayed that with the current hybrid work model and the requirement to connect with
colleagues globally, that the vast majority of their meetings continue to have a virtual
component. The dynamics of small talk conversations are fundamentally changed in a virtual
setting. All participants reported that making small talk is easier in person and despite features of

76
the technology and corporate efforts to replicate it in a virtual setting, remains unnatural online.
Anna described that making small talk in virtual meetings is a lot harder than in person:
Because before when you walk into a conference room, everybody can chit chat for a
little bit about random things. That is mostly lost when we do meetings online, because a
lot of times people wait until the meeting has started to join, or if we're still waiting it's
very awkward to be the one person that brings up something that seems very trivial to a
group of people online. Even though you may have done that in a room, it seems like
people are less likely to speak up online. So we definitely don't have as much of that as
before.
Fiona expressed similar sentiments about making small talk in virtual meetings:
It just makes it hard. And even if you have the feature of raising your hand, it just feels
like it's very secluded, and you're like being called on, right? Versus like naturally you're
just like, ‘Hey, what do you mean by that?’ When somebody says something, it's very
different. I think you're more casual in person.
There is also a deterrent effect of being the center of attention when speaking in a virtual
meeting. Anna noted “Small talks in a room you could be talking to the person next to you,
maybe a couple of people are noticing or hearing what you're saying. But you don't feel like the
entire room is gazing at you.” Fiona claimed she was less likely to engage in small talk in virtual
meetings because of the difficulty reading nonverbal cues online:
When I'm doing virtual I typically don't do small talks and stuff because it makes it hard.
When you're physically sitting next to this person, you can see their facial expressions,
right, their gestures, and you can tell how they are and you can easily just jump into

77
something and make a comment about it. But like in a virtual environment, it's hard to
gauge that.
Ingrid related that small talk conversations prior to the start of a virtual meeting are constantly
interrupted as people join the meeting. She also described how the amount and quality of small
talk in virtual meetings is inversely related to the number of participants:
It depends on how many people was in that meeting. Only two, you probably can have
more and deeper conversation, but sometimes you have four or five people. When they
keep joining they will stop the conversation or the small talk.
Hailey echoed similar sentiments that in virtual meetings, small talk remains at a more surface
level, “It's more how to say more shallow, the conversation will be more shallow. When people
meet in person I feel the connection will be stronger. I will ask a more deep question.”
Others reported that efforts to replicate in person small talk in virtual formats have been
largely unsuccessful. Anna noted that attempts to virtually recreate the very popular Thursday
happy hours at her company failed, “It's just not the same because you can't have simultaneous
side conversations, and it's just like everybody's waiting their turn. There are awkward moments
where it's like silence and somebody's like, ‘Should I jump in?’” George described a similar
situation:
Conversations by chance that are not planned were not happening anymore. And it's very
difficult to have any kind of replacement in a virtual format. So there were ideas like you
know, some virtual coffee meetings with roulette. But somehow that never worked very
well, from my perspective.
The move to a remote work model during COVID and the ongoing post-pandemic hybrid work
model has significantly reduced opportunities to make small talk in person in high technology

78
workplaces. The ongoing reliance on virtual meetings and in-person meetings with a virtual
component fundamentally alters the dynamics of small talk, with participants describing
awkward, shallow, and artificial interactions when compared to conversations in person.
Findings Research Question Three
Research Question Three looked at how nonnative English language speakers’
experiences with making small talk in high technology workplaces affect their ability to build
workplace social capital. Social capital in the workplace refers to the positive benefits, both
personal and corporate, that accrue from the social connections between employees. This section
provides an examination of the contribution of small talk to participants’ ability to build social
capital at work. Three key themes emerged from the participants’ experiences: (a) benefits of
small talk, (b) importance of workplace social events, and (c) friendships.
Benefits of Small Talk
All study participants found that small talk is important and contributes to interpersonal
connection in the workplace. As a manager, Anna makes a conscious effort to connect with her
team, “for the sake of building the more personal connection with people”. Charles recounted
that his colleagues enjoy the scheduled Monday Coffee Chat, and some people, “join just to
listen to what our folks are up to.” Commenting on the importance of knowing about one’s
coworkers’ lives beyond the workplace, Fiona described making a conscious effort to engage in
small talk, “because outside of work, we are all human. I figured that by having to share some
things in life, you feel like you can work longer or you have a more balance in between your
work and life.” George expressed similar sentiments, noting the role of small talk in building
trust between coworkers:

79
From my perspective, yes, it's positive. So, when there's some social interactions, simply
people know each other better. Sometimes the personal life can impact the professional
life and so there's a different level of trust. I think if people know also a little bit about the
personal life, I find it very positive.
Hailey pointed to the productivity benefits of having good connections with one’s coworkers,
“Two people if they don't know each other they may make it happen the work, but if you have
some small talk they know each other better. The work will be much more productive or get
alignment easier.” Others commented on the benefits of small talk in making a connection not
only with peers, but also with one’s manager. Fiona expressed that these employee-manager
connections help the employee communicate their needs and progress professionally, “When you
do that, it's going to help when they have new roles or new opportunities for this person. It's
important they continue with that, and that helps them to build up their leadership in the
organization.” Elaine, in her management role noted that these employee-manager connections
breed loyalty, which incentivizes the manager to help the employee advance in their career. She
shared, “Now you want a promotion? Let's get you that promotion. I really liked him as a person.
So there was a good bonding, a good connection between the two of us, and he was extremely
loyal to me.” Six of 11 participants also described how small talk with partners and suppliers
external to the company is also beneficial in easing tensions prior to difficult conversations and
facilitating negotiations. Jacob recounted that small talk with suppliers “makes the mood soft.”
David elaborated, “Small talk is a type of way of making friendship with them. We can make the
mood smoothly. We can start to talk about the small talk so we can make easy to talk about the
critical things.” Ingrid noted that small talk with external suppliers is important for the personal
connection as well as to succeed in negotiations:

80
You want to know them more and know if they have a bad day or good day, right? So
you can lead in your strategy for negotiation. If Supplier A has a huge layoff, and then I
was meeting with their account manager two days later you don't want to ask, ‘How's the
work? How’s Supplier A doing?’ So at that moment, I would try to avoid that.
The benefits of small talk in the workplace include promoting interpersonal connections,
building trust, and fostering collaboration. Participants described getting to know their
colleagues on a more personal level helps to create loyalty and a sense of purpose around
common goals. Small talk also benefits external corporate relationships in the form of easing
professional interactions and facilitating negotiations.
Importance of Workplace Social Events
Nine of 11 study participants reported that workplace social events are key situations to
make small talk that leads to deeper talk and connections with their colleagues and managers.
These social events include informal after work drinks or happy hours, lunchtime walks, as well
as team-, department-, or company-wide events such as bowling, golf, wine tasting, holiday
parties, workshops, team-building events, offsite meetings in a different city, and social events
around town hall meetings. All participants noted that the number and frequency of these social
events were impacted by COVID and remote work policies and have not yet returned to preCOVID levels. Barbara noted that at her company, after executive leadership presentations, these
social events are opportunities “to stay after and network”. As a manager, Elaine recounted that
she would schedule lunches for her team:
I will purposely try to steer away from business conversation to more personal. I would
let them choose a very nice restaurant, where they can eat whatever and we can have a
long lunch. And it was really nice to always interact.

81
Elaine also shared about the social culture and close bonds between colleagues at a technology
startup she worked at previously. She stated, “The founder would have the fireside chat on
Fridays and there was breakfast served, there was lunch served, and everybody would gather
around the kitchen and talk. With my team we were close, I knew everybody's lives.” Jacob
observed that small talk conversations at a social event were easier than at work, “It was more
comfortable than the office. You can easily find common things to talk about. Sometimes I can
teach them bowling. I was a professional bowler in college.” Workplace social events are
important for creating an environment conducive to small talk, which leads to closer personal
and professional bonds. Participants appreciated the more relaxed activities such as happy hours,
offsite meetings, and holiday parties to connect socially, although the number and frequency of
these gatherings have not returned to pre-pandemic levels.
Friendships
Eight of the eleven participants noted that it is common for nonnative English speakers,
themselves included, to have social conversations with others in their native language in the
workplace. Charles described:
It happens when someone who have English not a first language and then they meet
someone with their mother tongue, they socialize more and it seems more natural. So, I
have some colleagues from China and very often they speak to each other in Chinese.
He further related his own experience, “I used to have one teammate who is from Ukraine, but he
speaks Russian perfectly so we spoke a lot. We were very close because we used to speak on not
work-related items in our language.” Barbara described actively seeking out colleagues who
speak her native language, “I'm always trying to find Russian speaking colleagues, and just to
connect with them because I feel like we share similar background. So, I'm very proactive about

82
that.” She further expressed her preference for Russian-speaking friends, “I used to want to have
American friends, but now I feel like I speak English all the time at work. So, on weekends, I
just want to relax and speak Russian and have Russian friends.”
Five of 11 participants claimed to have friendships at work, with all five reporting that
those friends are from the same cultural and language background as theirs. Fiona stated, “I
noticed I've made close friends with the people that spoke Mandarin more because we have
similar backgrounds, right? And you're easier to talk to.” David discussed having Koreanspeaking friends at work, “Every day three people after the lunch we have hiking through the
trail. We have a small talk every day for 40 minutes, talking about some things and walking,
their families, their travels.” Hailey described having Chinese-speaking friends at work, “Most of
my friends came from my colleague. We get along with each other more than 10 years. We're
good friends.” Two of the five participants with workplace friendships mentioned having a friend
at work that did not speak their native language. Rather, they bonded over a common interest.
James explained having a friend with a common interest in electronics, and Charles a friend with
similar taste in music, movies, and video games. For the nonnative English speakers in this
study, workplace friendships are most common based on shared language and cultural
backgrounds, although two participants highlighted connections built around shared interests.
Summary
The experiences of nonnative English language speakers in high-technology companies
in Silicon Valley demonstrated they face significant challenges making small talk at work,
negatively impacting their ability to engage socially and build workplace social capital. These
challenges included actual and perceived English language proficiency, lack of knowledge of the
rules of small talk, and unfamiliarity with American culture. Participants explained that small

83
talk is anxiety-provoking, with many preferring work talk over small talk where conversations
are supported by a known context and a familiar shared vocabulary. Further, cultural differences
made many participants uncomfortable making small talk at work as they came from countries
and cultures where small talk is uncommon in the workplace, especially with superiors. Female
participants experienced an additional challenge navigating male-dominated small talk
conversations where they felt excluded from participating due to dominant communication styles
and unfamiliar topics. Participants described using a number of different strategies to address the
difficulties they face making small talk at work and integrating into the social fabric of their
workplaces. These included proactively preparing for small talk conversations, emulating
workplace role models, seeking friendships with coworkers with the same first language, and
leveraging shared interests such as food and hobbies.
Additional barriers to nonnative English language speakers making small talk at work
were also evident at the corporate level, with heavy workloads, high-pressure work
environments, and competitive industry-wide dynamics negatively impacting the time available
to make small talk with colleagues. Managers were found to further compound this effect by
failing to prioritize employee check-ins or small talk prior to meetings, often focusing solely on
the work at hand. Remote work that began during COVID-19 and has continued for at least part
of the work week at high technology companies has reduced the number of employees present in
the office and thrown formerly reliable employee arrival, break, lunch, and exit times into chaos,
further reducing small talk opportunities. Significantly, the prevalence of virtual meetings has
changed the dynamics of small talk in meetings, reducing its prevalence and duration, and
making the personal interactions that do occur unnatural and uncomfortable. Corporate strategies

84
to mitigate these challenges included managers encouraging and scheduling of small talk
opportunities and sponsoring regular social events for employees.

85
Chapter Five: Discussion
The study examined the social interactions of nonnative English language speakers in
high-technology work environments in Silicon Valley. This chapter synthesizes and summarizes
a thematic analysis of the participants’ interview data, which reflects their subjective
observations and experiences. The chapter begins by discussing the study's main findings and
then provides recommendations for organizations, effectively linking theory with practice. It
concludes by offering suggestions for future research.
Discussion of Findings
The study's results explore three research questions: (a) the experiences of nonnative
English speakers navigating unscripted social conversations in high technology workplaces, (b)
the barriers to engaging in small talk, and (c) the associated effects on participants’ sense of
belonging and capacity to build and maintain workplace social capital. The findings are
consistent with the initial conceptual framework, which suggests there is a knowledge and skills
gap between native and nonnative English speakers in making effective small talk in professional
settings. This gap adversely impacts nonnative speakers' capacity to build workplace social
capital and realize the benefits of social belonging.
Three key findings emerged from the data, which illustrate the challenges that
participants encounter when engaging in small talk in the workplace and the adaptations they
make to address them. The data also identify the structural barriers to workplace small talk and
the role of organizational leadership in fostering communication within and across linguistically
diverse teams. Recommendations are provided for organizations interested in fostering
supportive and inclusive workplaces. This study contributes to the current body of literature

86
regarding the experiences of nonnative English speakers participating in both professional and
social conversations in the workplace.
Individual Challenges and Adaptations to Workplace Small Talk
Participants faced linguistic and emotional challenges making small talk in hightechnology workplaces. They experienced anxiety in part due to their individual challenges with
the English language. Challenges included difficulties with comprehension, vocabulary,
grammar, accent, and making themselves understood by colleagues. Participants often adapted
by preparing for these informal social interactions ahead of time by researching and creating
scripts. Consistent with these results, Schmid and Yeni-Komshian (1999) found that listening to
and speaking in English in real time increased the cognitive load for nonnative English language
speakers. Participants often avoided small talk at work due to self-consciousness about their
conversational skills and fear of embarrassment, thereby reducing opportunities to build
workplace social capital. These findings held true even for those with many years of English
instruction and practice and align with Pullin's (2010) research showing that feelings of linguistic
insecurity at work resulted in fewer social interactions overall. Similarly, Neely (2013)
established that nonnative speakers sometimes choose conservative communication strategies to
minimize risks in informal conversations. Beyond embarrassment, making small talk mistakes at
work carries the added risk of damaging one’s professional reputation.
Another obstacle faced by participants was difficulty with pragmatics, or the ability to
navigate the social aspects of language use. They struggled to learn and apply the unspoken rules
of small talk. Common areas of difficulty were conversational timing, humor, nuances, and
appropriate topics. Participants’ cultural differences also impacted their ability to deftly negotiate
workplace small talk. They were largely unfamiliar with typical workplace small-talk topics in

87
the United States, such as sports, entertainment, and American holidays, which led to
participants’ being unwilling, uncomfortable, or even unable to participate in small talk
conversations with their colleagues. According to Holmes (2000c), small talk goes beyond
simple niceties and is a culturally embedded practice that signifies group connection. The lack of
culturally relevant knowledge impeded the ability of nonnative English speakers to make the
social connections in the workplace essential to creating social capital.
Study participants preferred work talk over small talk. The shared goals, context, and
vocabulary of work talk helped them perform relatively better and feel more at ease. Small talk's
highly nuanced, culturally based nature is a potential minefield for nonnative English speakers in
contrast to the practical and context-based work conversations they prefer. This preference for
work talk over small talk limits opportunities to foster workplace relationships and build social
capital. This finding is in line with Neely’s (2013) results that task-oriented conversations help
nonnative speakers highlight their professional skills and better manage their language
shortcomings. Despite a clear preference for work talk, participants acknowledged the social
value of small talk in the workplace. Coupland (2000) found that in the workplace, small talk
serves a relational rather than a transactional function and helps to build social capital. Although
small talk has been considered trivial by researchers and laypersons alike, participants largely
appreciated its value and considered it important for building relationships and trust.
The study also revealed that small talk conversations in the workplace are influenced by
gender dynamics. Female participants reported challenges with the conversation topics and
communication styles of their male colleagues. Specifically, they described not having adequate
knowledge of their male colleagues’ favorite topics, including sports, golf, drinking, and
collecting, which prevented, reduced, or made their conversational participation uncomfortable.

88
With male-female interactions dominated by male-centric cultural references, these findings
confirm Holmes's (2006) assertion that communicative exchanges in the workplace reflect
current gender norms. Moreover, female participants often felt ignored or were interrupted in
conversations with male colleagues, due to their reported louder and more assertive
communication style. These findings support Tannen's (1994) study on gender-based
communication gaps, which found that workplace power imbalances or reinforced by informal
interactions.
Structural Barriers to Workplace Small Talk
Cultural norms emerged as one of several structural barriers to nonnative English
speakers’ ability to make small talk in the workplace. In many countries, small talk is not a
characteristic of workplace culture. Participants reported that their countries of origin have a
more serious, strictly hierarchical corporate culture wherein nonwork-related conversations and
sharing of personal information are not the norm. These cultural customs impacted participants’
initial expectations of corporate culture in the United States and made it challenging to adapt to
the friendly, casual, and open conversations characteristic of American workplaces. Further,
although participants all had extensive English training, none had received lessons in making
small talk. This finding is supported by Pullin (2010), who reported that although small talk
fosters workplace camaraderie, its subtleties, and culturally specific aspects can prove
challenging for those unfamiliar with its unspoken rules. Similarly, Holmes (2000c) found that
small talk is a culturally embedded practice that transcends simple politeness, signaling
interpersonal connection and group identification. The research supports that difficulty or
inability to make effective small talk in the workplace negatively impacts nonnative English
speakers’ ability to integrate socially.

89
Intense workload demands in the high-technology workplaces studied limited nonnative
English speakers’ opportunities to engage in small talk. Silicon Valley's high-performance
culture is characterized by long work hours and a focus on efficiency and innovation, leaving
little time for social interaction in the workplace (Scott et al., 2017; Roberts & Wolf, 2018).
Participants all described demanding jobs and long workdays that did not offer many small talk
opportunities, with work talk always taking precedence. In challenging economic times, when
restructuring and layoffs are occurring, this effect is even more pronounced as general stress
levels are heightened. Limited time for small talk reduces opportunities to develop and sustain
the relationships necessary for building workplace social capital. For nonnative English speakers
who already face linguistic and cultural barriers to integration, not prioritizing social connections
in the workplace may exacerbate feelings of isolation (Holmes, 2000c).
Post-COVID-19 high-technology workplaces are characterized by fewer and less organic
opportunities for informal social connection. The shift to remote work during the COVID-19
pandemic, followed by the adoption of the current hybrid work model, disrupted everyday
routines and changed workplace dynamics. Holmes (2000c) found that periods of "downtime" or
transitional spaces, like before meetings or during breaks, are often when small talk
conversations take place. These periods of transition have now been significantly reduced with
fewer workers in the office and meetings moved to a virtual format. Virtual meetings are
effective for work-related discussions, but present limitations for small talk. Virtual
conversations lack the spontaneity, proximity, nonverbal cues, and natural cadence of in-person
interactions. Participants unanimously reported these limitations to make virtual small talk feel
awkward, forced, and unnatural. The literature emphasizes the need for regular, unplanned
encounters to build professional connections (Holmes, 2000c). The lack of these opportunities

90
limits nonnative speakers' ability to connect meaningfully with their colleagues and build social
capital.
The Role of Leadership and Opportunities for Social Engagement
Manager and company leadership support in creating space for informal social
connections is invaluable. Nonnative speakers felt more included and confident in their
interactions when their managers encouraged small talk at the beginning of meetings, during
team activities, or at designated "check-ins” and was especially true if there was a predetermined
topic or set of small talk questions they could prepare for. Spencer-Oatey (2000) discovered that
leaders who intentionally demonstrate inclusive conversational approaches are better able to
foster rapport in the workplace. Task-oriented leaders often failed to make space for small talk,
which limited social interactions. According to Holmes (2000c), managers act as "process
owners" of workplace small talk interactions as they control the tone and timing of casual
conversations, especially in hierarchical organizations. These results highlight the critical role
that leadership plays in creating conversational norms and support Pullin's (2010) claim that,
when purposefully included in organizational procedures, small talk fosters workplace
camaraderie and collaboration.
Social events at work were important for creating opportunities for small talk
conversations. Participants appreciated the more relaxed environment of off-site meetings, team
lunches, parties, and casual get-togethers for making conversation and building relationships
with coworkers. Company events provide opportunities to foster relationships that are vital for
creating and maintaining workplace social capital. Novel environments and shared group
activities facilitated small talk in these situations and reduced the anxiety associated with
language and cultural barriers. Coupland (2000) demonstrated that employees can build mutual

91
trust and understanding through informal workplace encounters. Further, Pullin (2010)
emphasized that social gatherings that center around common interests, such as cooking, promote
unity and mutual understanding by allowing coworkers to view one another as people, outside of
a strict business context.
For the nonnative English speakers in the study, workplace friendships reflected shared
cultural and linguistic backgrounds, as they formed close bonds exclusively with colleagues from
their country of origin. These friendships played a role in creating a sense of belonging in the
workplace, and connections often extended into personal time after work and on the weekends.
Many study participants reported mental fatigue from work demands and the stress of speaking
English all day. These same-language friendships also offered them a welcome break to connect
socially with ease and familiarity in their native language. Spencer-Oatey (2000) emphasized
that cultivating workplace relationships is important for fostering mutual understanding and trust.
None of the participants reported close relationships with native English speakers at work.
Therefore, notwithstanding their benefits, these culturally and linguistically compatible
relationships may also act to limit integration into the broader workplace environment.
Recommendations
Nonnative English speakers face significant challenges making small talk in hightechnology workplaces that directly impact their ability to build workplace social capital.
Challenges include language and culture barriers, workplace structural constraints, and
leadership approaches. Recommendations based on the literature and the study’s findings target
the individual and structural barriers to fully integrating nonnative English speakers into their
workplaces and providing them equal opportunity to create social capital and realize its benefits.
Three practical suggestions are presented for organizations seeking to foster more inclusive work

92
environments: (a) specialized communication training, (b) leadership support for informal social
communication, and (c) social events to build connection and community.
Recommendation 1: Specialized Communication Training
Providing nonnative English speakers with specialized communication training that
addresses their unique needs is critical to encouraging and supporting their involvement in
workplace small talk. Despite years of studying English, in many cases since childhood,
participants reported that they were never explicitly taught the skill of small talk. Upon joining
American workplaces, they were completely unprepared to participate in these informal
conversations. Training programs can focus on the importance of workplace small talk, practical
skills for making small talk, and popular aspects of American culture. Some nonnative Englishspeaking employees may also benefit from additional language and pronunciation training.
Moreover, Silicon Valley companies are ideally positioned to leverage cutting-edge technologies
such as virtual reality (VR) to provide this training. In their 2020 study, Derboven et al.
demonstrate how using virtual reality can help learners not only improve their language skills but
also enhance cultural competency through immersion in engaging environments. Training using
VR technology allows employees to practice small talk conversations in realistic environments,
with feedback provided in real time. It also provides a low-risk learning environment free of the
anxiety, embarrassment, and potential negative consequences of practicing with a colleague.
Mentorship programs can improve the informal communication skills of nonnative
speakers. They can be implemented in conjunction with traditional or virtual communication
training. Ghosh and Reio (2013) showed the value of mentoring in workplace learning,
particularly for employees faced with foreign cultures and language challenges. Communication
mentors or workplace buddies can help nonnative English-speaking employees navigate small

93
talk with greater ease and confidence. These mentors can assist mentees in navigating typical
conversational topics, providing real-time feedback, fielding questions, and demonstrating
effective communication skills. Mentorship programs can improve nonnative speakers’ small
talk skills and promote interpersonal connections and a sense of belonging. With this approach,
organizations can offer support to nonnative English speakers, enhancing communicative
confidence and fostering the skills necessary to build social connections.
Recommendation 2: Leadership Support for Informal Social Communication
Organizational leadership plays a key role in creating the time, space, and favorable
conditions for informal social conversations in the workplace. This study’s findings reinforce
that the approaches of individual managers, as small talk “process holders” (Holmes, 2000c),
either facilitate or hinder its use. Thoughtful preparation and planning to integrate small talk into
established work routines is required. Examples include allotting time at the beginning of
meetings, weekly scheduled team check-ins, and one-on-one chats. The study participants also
appreciated an agenda and prior notice of informal topics (e.g., icebreaker questions) to be
discussed in order to prepare in advance. The study further supported that to effectively
encourage small talk, managers must be perceived as genuine and show true interest in getting to
know their employees on a personal level. Moreover, these efforts must not be sacrificed to
workload, with many participants feeling informal social conversations are even more important
in difficult, stressful times.
Beyond the logistics of prioritizing time for workplace small talk, leaders must recognize
and address the emotional, language, and cultural barriers faced by nonnative speakers.
Participants described anxiety and avoidance behaviors around small talk interactions based on
linguistic insecurity and lack of knowledge of cultural norms. Neeley (2013) highlighted the

94
importance of creating communication strategies that account for linguistic diversity. He
emphasized that targeted support can help nonnative speakers engage in informal interactions
more confidently. Training for managers on these barriers could include learning about other
cultures, the structure and norms of other languages, and the emotional impact of communication
difficulties. This approach is consistent with the work of Spencer-Oatey (2000) on relational
harmony, which highlights the importance of interpersonal understanding for creating a cohesive
and inclusive workplace. Practically, efforts might look like managers scaffolding small talk
interactions by offering language support and contextual cues or introducing accessible topics
during one-on-one or team interactions. Managers who are nonnative English speakers
themselves could be encouraged to share their own fears, experiences, and learnings. Training
leaders to be more aware and intentional in their approach to workplace small talk will better
support their diverse teams and foster an inclusive culture.
Recommendation 3: Social Events to Build Connection and Community
To promote inclusive workplaces and encourage informal communication, employers can
focus on creating organized opportunities for employees to connect through mindful workspaces
and planned social activities. Coffee and snack zones and comfortable seating in busy areas
create natural spots for people to gather for spontaneous conversations. Game rooms, hobby
areas, and other activity-based workspaces give employees a chance to join in shared activities,
which builds relationships and encourages collaboration across different teams and departments.
Cultural walls displaying employees' heritages and interests could provide interesting topics to
start conversations and promote diversity in the workplace. Appel-Meulenbroek et al. (2022)
showed that well-designed workplaces with communal areas and spaces for informal activities
increase employee interaction and promote social connections. Many high technology companies

95
in Silicon Valley are known for their revolutionary workspaces, and Dropbox and Airbnb have
been acknowledged for their spaces that encourage collaboration and interaction (Wallpaper,
2023). As organizations navigate the post-COVID-19 and hybrid work era, they must work to
refresh and reinvigorate these spaces. It is important to focus on designs that actively encourage
spontaneous interactions, provide built-in topics of conversation, and provide accessibility for inperson as well as remote team members.
Organizations can also build community and connection by scheduling social gatherings
and events. Examples of these include potlucks, happy hours, and offsite outings (e.g., bowling,
Bingo, volunteering). Group activities, like book clubs, or cooking and sharing meals, help
nonnative employees have a focus and vocabulary around informal conversations. Small talk
feels more natural and approachable in these situations, and it allows employees to see each other
as more relatable and human by reducing cultural and linguistic barriers (Pullin, 2010). However,
as high-technology companies have hybrid, remote, and geographically distributed teams, social
gatherings must include a virtual component. Organizations may also consider some entirely
virtual events. Nardi and Whittaker (2002) showed that remote work needs intentional strategies
to encourage informal communication, and these suggestions support that idea. By creating and
supporting in-person, hybrid, and virtual social gatherings, organizations can foster informal
social conversations and work to bridge cultural, language, and physical boundaries.
Limitations and Delimitations
Although this study used several techniques to ensure credibility and dependability, some
inherent limitations and delimitations restricted the scope and findings of the research (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). First, the data gathered were self-reported and reflected participants' personal
experiences and evaluations of workplace interactions. Consequently, selective recollection,

96
memory biases, or an individual's particular perspective on workplace experiences may have
influenced the data. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), self-reported data often reflect
participants' opinions about what happened rather than objective facts, which introduces
variation in the reliability and quality of the data. Further, the study's use of recollections of inperson interactions prior to the shift to remote work at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic
could have further affected data accuracy. This drawback was mitigated to an extent by
incorporating prompts to generate comparative insights between in-person and virtual
interactions. Finally, participant selection was restricted to high-technology companies based in
Silicon Valley, California. These companies are known for their distinctive workplace cultures
and demographics. As a result, the findings may not accurately represent the experiences of
nonnative English speakers across various industries or regions.
The study's delimitations reflect intentional decisions to focus on a specific population,
scope, and conceptual framework. Nonnative English speakers with at least 1 year of on-site
experience in a Silicon Valley high-technology company made up the target population. The
definition of a high-technology company was limited to the population of companies that create
and develop leading-edge technological products and services through a systematic approach and
application of technical and scientific knowledge (Hecker, 2005). This definition may not reflect
all companies in the technology sector or those outside the geographical area of Silicon Valley.
In addition, the study’s design is affected by positionality, worldview, and selection of
conceptual framework. The conceptual framework is limited to the participants’ recollections of
and perspectives on their workplace experiences. By definition, it does not reflect the
perspectives of senior leadership, human resources, or the culture and policies of the
organization.

97
Future Research
The challenges faced by nonnative English speakers negotiating small talk in the
workplace provide a rich basis for future research. Expanding the scope beyond high-technology
companies in Silicon Valley to other sectors, such as education, finance, and healthcare, would
allow for an examination of alternative factors impacting informal workplace communication
and the ability to build social capital. An avenue for future research lies in how the structure and
characteristics of these workplaces impact the integration of nonnative speakers into the social
fabric of the organizations. For instance, industries with less collaborative work models or fewer
opportunities for informal interactions may need different approaches to foster inclusion. In
addition, a more in-depth examination of nonnative English speakers’ experiences as individual
contributors versus managers and the gender dynamics of small talk experiences in the
workplace is of interest. Further, tracking growth in nonnative speakers’ small talk skills over
time could provide insights into the impact of skill improvement on feelings of belonging and
career success.
Future research can also investigate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at inclusion,
such as mentorship programs and communication training courses. Although this study
emphasized the possibilities of VR and mentorship to assist nonnative speakers, future research
might evaluate their effects in practice. Finding out how these interventions enhance not only
language and pragmatic skills, but also more general workplace integration could provide
organizations with actionable data. Another promising direction is evaluating the leadership
styles of managers and their effect on feelings of social belonging and the professional success of
nonnative speakers. Studies might probe the degree to which employees' sense of belonging and
capacity for small talk is influenced by culturally sensitive leadership.

98
Finally, given that remote and hybrid work models are now firmly ingrained in
professional life across many companies and industries, future studies could investigate how
virtual and technology-based communication influences informal social interactions. Examining
the characteristics of virtual workspaces, virtual meetings, virtual or hybrid social events, or
asynchronous communication systems (e.g., chat or messaging) could help companies find ways
to provide remote staff with meaningful opportunities for social interaction. Nardi and Whittaker
(2002) emphasized the need for deliberate strategies to encourage informal communication in
remote work environments. This finding points to the need for future research to support the
needs of nonnative English speakers. Evaluating these virtual and hybrid approaches may give
organizations creative means to facilitate informal social interaction in different settings for all
employees.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates the critical role of small talk for nonnative English speakers
working in the fast-paced, high-pressure, innovation-driven world of Silicon Valley's high
technology industry. It reveals not only the language and cultural barriers they face but also the
systemic problems that prevent them from being included. In examining how nonnative English
speakers navigate informal workplace interactions, this research shows how small talk, often
dismissed as trivial, is a powerful tool for creating workplace social capital and fostering
belonging. This strengthens Holmes' (2000c) findings that small talk is indispensable for creating
community and connection. Small talk is far from trivial; it is essential for encouraging trust,
collaboration, and professional growth.
The findings highlight how workplace structures and leadership are essential in crafting
workplace small talk experiences. Environments in which managers' intentions to encourage

99
inclusion are genuine and deliberate help nonnative English speakers thrive. Leadership’s
incorporating meaningful small talk and inclusive communication practices into daily workflows
encourages unity and cooperation, as Pullin (2010) has asserted. This challenge is increased in
today’s hybrid and remote work models, where chances for natural connection are rare.
Organizations must act swiftly and decisively to counter the barriers and implement strategies
that promote strong connections, even in virtual spaces.
This research urgently calls for organizations to create equitable workplaces where all
employees can succeed, no matter their language or culture. Addressing the barriers to small talk
will empower nonnative speakers to make social connections, strengthen feelings of belonging,
and reach their professional potential. The recommendations to provide targeted training, foster
inclusive leadership, and facilitate informal communication opportunities are not merely
practical solutions but a strategic approach to unlocking the full potential of individual and team
contributions. Small talk, often seen as inconsequential, is at the core of creating workplaces that
respect and value every voice. This study focuses on the transformative power of small talk to
not only foster connections but cultivate cultures of belonging, innovation, and success.

100
References
Adamson, D. (1991). Starting English for business. Prentice Hall.
Allen, J.A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Landowski, N. (2014). Linking pre-meeting
communication to meeting effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(8),
1064-1081. doi:10.1108/JMP-09-2012-0265
Alvesson, M., & Billing, Y. D. (2009). Masculinities, femininities and work. In M. Alvesson &
Y. D. Billing (Eds), Understanding gender and organizations (2nd ed., pp. 70-95). Sage.
Asiamah, N., Mensah, H. K., & Oteng-Abayie, E. (2017). General, target, and accessible
population: Demystifying the concepts for effective sampling. The Qualitative Report,
22(6), 1607-1621.
Baron, E. (2018, January 17). H-1B: Foreign citizens make up nearly three-quarters of Silicon
Valley tech workforce, report says. The Mercury News.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/h-1b-foreign-citizens-make-up-nearly-threequarters-of-silicon-valley-tech-workforce-report-says/
Baron, E. (2020, June 22). H-1B: Silicon Valley blasts Trump’s Monday order suspending visas:
High-profile tech-industry group predicts ‘dangerous impact on the economic recovery.’
The Mercury News. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/22/h-1b-silicon-valleyblasts-trumps-monday-order-suspending-visas/
Beinstein, J. (1975). Conversations in public places. Journal of Communication, 25, 85–94.
Bellamy, K., Ostini, R., Martini, N., & Kairuz, T. (2016). Seeking to understand: Using generic
qualitative research to explore access to medicines and pharmacy services among
resettled refugees. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38(3), 671-675.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0261-1

101
Benner, K. (2017, June 30). Women in tech speak frankly on culture of harassment. The New
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/womenentrepreneursspeak-out-sexual-harassment.html
Blum-Kulka, S. (2000). Gossipy events at family dinners: Negotiating sociability, presence and
the moral order. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 213–240). Longman.
Brannen, M.Y., Piekkari, R., & Tietze, S. (2014). The multifaceted role of language in
international business: Unpacking the forms, functions and features of a critical challenge
to MNC theory and performance. Journal of International Business Studies 45. 495–507.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Brinkmann & Kvale. (2019) InterViews. Sage.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge
University Press.
Calvet, J.L. (1999). Pour une écologie des langues du monde. Plon.
Calvet, J.L. (2015). La sociolinguistique. PUF.
Campbell, K. S., White, C. D., & Johnson, D. E. (2003, July). Leader-member relations as a
function of rapport management. Journal of Business Communication, 40, 170-194.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. (1989). A model of the perceived competence of conflict
strategies. Human Communication Research, 15(4), 630–649.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1989.tb00202.x
Carnavale, A., Gainer P., & Meltzer, A. (1990). Workplace basics: The essential skills employers
want. Jossey-Bass.

102
Chang, E. (2019). Brotopia: Breaking up the boys' club of Silicon Valley. Portfolio.
Charles, M. (2007). Language matters in global communication. Article based on ORA lecture,
October 2006. Journal of Business Communication, 44, 260-282.
Charles, M. (2008, March). Lingua franca in global business. Paper presented at the ELF Forum:
The First International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, University of Helsinki,
Finland.
Chaudhry, H., Wall, A. E., & Wall, J. L. (2019). Exploring the gender gap in tech companies:
Why aren't there more women? Competition Forum, 17(2), 275-280.
Chen R. (1993) Responding to compliments: a contrastive study of politeness strategies between
American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 49-75.
Clyne, M. (1991) Patterns of inter-cultural communication in Melbourne factories. Language
and Language Education, 1(1), 5-30.
Clyne, M. (1994). Intercultural communication at work. Cambridge University Press.
Colby, L. (2017, August 8). Women and tech. Bloomberg.
https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/women-are-underrepresented-in-the-high-techindustry-globally
Cole, G. (2016). Small talk’s big role. Development and Learning in Organizations: An
International Journal, 30(2), 25-27. doi:10.1108/DLO-12-2015-0100
Collier, S. (2010) Getting things done in the L1 and L2: Bilingual immigrant women's use of
communication strategies in entrepreneurial contexts. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(1),
61-81, https://doi.org/10.1080/15235881003733365
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Polity.

103
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the
concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829-859.
Conor, B., Gill, R., & Taylor, S. (2015). Gender and creative labour. The Sociological Review,
63(Coupland, 2003), 1-22.
Cooke, D., Brown, T., & Zhu, Y. (2007). Beyond Language: Workplace Communication and the
L2 Worker. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 17(1), 83-103.
doi:10.1075/japc.17.1.06coo
Corbett, C. (2013, April 5). Three reasons the wage gap hurts women in STEM. Retrieved from
http://www.aauw.org/2013/04/05/three-reasons-the-wage-gap-hurts-women-in-stem/
Cordella, M., Large, H., & Pardo, V. (1995). Complimenting behaviour in Australian English
and Spanish speech. Muhilingua, 14(3), 1-23.
Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication
situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton. Small Talk:
Social Functions 5
Coupland, J. (2003) Small Talk: Social Functions, Research on Language and Social Interaction,
36(1), 1-6, DOI: 10.1207/Coupland, 20035327973RLSI3601_1
Coupland, J., & Jaworski, A. (2003). Transgression and intimacy in recreational talk narratives.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(1), 85-106.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLS13601_5
Coupland, J., Coupland, N., & Robinson, J. (1992). “How are you?”: Negotiating phatic
communion. Language and Society, 21, 207–230.
Coupland, J., Robinson, J., & Coupland, N. (1994). Frame negotiation in doctor-elderly patient
consultations. Discourse and Society, 5, 89–124.

104
Coupland, N., & Ylänne-McEwen, V. (2000). Talk about the weather: Small talk, leisure talk
and the travel industry. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 163–182). Longman.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. W. (2019). Research methods: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Sage.
Crossling, G., & Ward, I. (2002). Oral communication: The workplace needs and uses of
business graduate employees. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 41-57.
Crossman, P. (2018). Does Silicon Valley's 'bro culture' pervade IT elsewhere? Bank Investment
Consultant, MIT Press. (Online)
Curtis, S., Gesler, W., Smith, G., & Washburn, S. (2000). Approaches to sampling and case
selection in qualitative research: examples in the geography of health. Social Science &
Medicine, 50, 1001-1014.
Daniel, B. K. (2019). What constitutes a good qualitative research study? fundamental
dimensions and indicators of rigour in qualitative research: The TACT framework.
Kidmore End: Academic Conferences International Limited.
https://doi.org/10.34190/RM.19.113
Dempsey, M. (2019, July 24). Silicon Valley is where women go to fail—unless they do these
three things. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/90380422/silicon-valley-iswhere-women-go-to-fail-unless-they-do-these-three-things
Deprez‐Sims, A. S., & Morris, S. B. (2010). Accents in the workplace: Their effects during a job
interview. International Journal of Psychology, 45(6), 417-426.
doi:10.1080/00207594.2010.499950

105
Dodge, M., Valcore, L., & Gomez, F. (2011), Women on SWAT teams: separate but equal?
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 34(4), 699-
712.
Duffy, B. E. (2016). The romance of work: Gender and aspirational labour in the digital culture
industries. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 19(4), 441-457.
Dwyer, J. (1993). The business communication handbook (3rd edition). Prentice Hall.
Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. Cassell.
Ellis, M., & Johnson, C. (1994). Teaching business English. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Envoy Global. (2023). H-1B visa sponsors: Top companies, cities, and jobs for 2023. Envoy
Global. https://resources.envoyglobal.com/
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). Diversity in high tech.
https://www.eeoc.gov/special-report/diversity-high-tech
Fairclough, N. (Ed.). (1992). Critical language awareness. Longman.
Farooq, M. B., & de Villiers, C. (2017). Telephonic qualitative research interviews: when to
consider them and how to do them. Meditari Accountancy Research, 25(2), 291-316.
DOI:10.1108/MEDAR-10-2016-0083
Firth, A. (2008, March). The lingua franca factor. Paper presented at the ELF Forum: The First
International Conference on English as a Lingua Franca, University of Helsinki, Finland.
Fletcher, J. (1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work. MIT
Press.
Foroohar, R. (2018). Marc Benioff: Taking on silicon Valley’s noxious culture. FT.Com,

106
Fowler, S. (2017). Reflecting on one very, very strange year at Uber.
https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-atuber
Francard, M. (ed.). 1993/1994. L’insécurité linguistique dans les communautés francophones
périphériques. Cahiers de l’Institut de linguistique de Louvain-la-Neuve 1 et. 2.
Francard, M. (1997). Insécurité linguistique, In Marie-Louise Moreau (ed.), Sociolinguistique.
Concepts de base, 170–176. Liège: Madraga.
Freeman, C. (2000). High tech and high heels in the global economy: Women, work, and pinkcollar identities in the Caribbean. Duke University Press.
Galvin, M., Prescott, D., & Huseman, R. (1992). Business communication: Strategies and skills
(4th edition). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Garcia, P. (2016, January 13). New study finds gender discrimination in the tech industry is still
sky-high. Vogue. Retrieved from https://www.vogue.com/article/female-discriminationtech-industry- study.
Gargalianou, V., Muehlfeld, K., Urbig, D., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2016). Foreign Language
Anxiety in Professional Contexts. Schmalenbach Business Review, 17(2), 195-223.
doi:10.1007/s41464-016-0007-6
Garner A.M., & Sharma B.K. (1972). The Social, Intercultural, and Transactional Nature of
Small Talk in the Second Language Classroom. TESOL Communications, 1(2), 19-.
doi:10.46451/tc.20220202
Goffman, E. (1972). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In J.
Laver & S. Hutcheson (Eds.), Communication in face to face interaction (pp. 319–346).
Penguin.

107
Google. (2023). 2023 diversity annual report. Retrieved from
https://about.google/belonging/diversity-annual-report/2023
Grant, D., & McLarty, R. (1995). Business basics. Oxford University Press.
Great Schools Partnership. (2014, February 28). Non-native English speaker. The Glossary of
Education Reform. https://www.edglossary.org/non-native-english-speaker/
Guirdham, M. (1999). Communicating across cultures. Macmillan Press.
Gumpen, J. J., Jupp, T.C., & Roberts, C. (1979). Crosstalk: A study of cross-cultural
communication. National Centre for Industrial Language Training.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Guynn, J., & Weise, E. (2014, August 15). Lack of diversity could undercut Silicon Valley. USA
Today. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/ 2014/06/26/silicon-valley-tech-diversitywhite-asian-black-hispanic-google-facebookyahoo/11372421.
Guynn, J., & della Cava, M. (2014, Dec. 30). Few minorities in non-tech jobs in Silicon Valley,
USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/12/29/usatoday-analysis-findsminorities-underrepresented-in-non-tech-tech-jobs/20868353.
Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and
meaning. Edward Arnold.
Hansen, K., Rakić, T., & Steffens, M. C. (2014). When actions speak louder than words:
Preventing discrimination of nonstandard speakers. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 33(1), 68-77. doi:10.1177/0261927X13499761
Hardey, M. (2017). Theorizing and researching gender and digital leadership in ‘Tech Cities.’”
In C. M. Cunningham, H. M. Crandall, & A. M. Dare (Eds.), Gender, communication,
and the leadership gap (pp. 291-310). Information Age Publishing.

108
Hardey, M. (2019). Women’s leadership and gendered experiences in tech cities. Gender in
Management, 34(3), 188-199. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-05-2018-0048
Hardy, L. J., Hughes, A., Hulen, E., & Schwartz, A. L. (2016). Implementing qualitative data
management plans to ensure ethical standards in multi-partner centers. Journal of
Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(2), 191-198.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616636233
Hatzidaki, A., Baus, C., & Costa, A. (2015). The way you say it, the way I feel it: emotional
word processing in accented speech. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(351), 1-12.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00351
Hecker, D. E. (2005). High-technology employment: a NAICS-based update. Monthly Labor
Review, 128(7), 57-72.
Herbert, R. K. (1989). The ethnography of English compliments and compliment responses: a
contrastive sketch. In O. Wieslaw (Ed.), Contrastive pragmatics (pp. 3-35). John
Benjamins.
Herbert, R. K. (1991). The sociology of compliment work: an ethnocontrastive study of Polish
and English compliments. Multilingua, 10(4), 381-402.
Hewlett, S. A., Luce, C. B., Servon, L. J., Sherbin, L., Shiller, P., Sosnovich, E., & Sumberg, K.
(2008). The Athena factor: Reversing the brain drain in science, engineering, and
technology. Available at https://hbr.org/product/the-athena-factor-reversing-the-braindrain-in-sci/an/10094-PDF-ENG
Hodgson, J., & Richards, E. (1974). Improvisation. Eyre Methuen.
Holden, N. (2002). Cross-cultural management: A knowledge management perspective. Pearson
Education.

109
Holmes, J. (1986). Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English.
Anthropological Linguistics 28(4), 485-508.
Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential positive politeness strategy. Journal
of Pragmatics, 12(3), 445-465.
Holmes, J. (1998). No joking matter! The functions of humour in the workplace. ALS98. Papers
in Proceedings of the Australian Linguistics Society Conference: Brisbane University of
Queensland, July 1998, http://www.cltr.uq.edu.au/als9W
Holmes, J. (2000a). Doing collegiality and keeping control at work: Small talk in government
departments. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 32–61). Longman.
Holmes, J. (2000b). Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace.
Discourse Studies, 2(2), 159-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002002002
Holmes, J. (2000c). Talking English from 9 to 5: challenges for ESL learners at work.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 125-140.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00143.x
Holmes, J. (2003). Small talk at work: Potential problems for workers with an intellectual
disability. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(1), 65-84.
https://doi.org/10.1207/ Coupland, 20035327973RLSI3601_4
Holmes, J., & Brown, D. (1987). Teachers and students learning about compliments. Tesol
Quarterly 21(3), 523-46.
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace. Pearson Education.
Holmes, P. (2015). ‘The cultural stuff around how to talk to people’: immigrants' intercultural
communication during a pre-employment work-placement, Language and Intercultural
Communication, 15(1), 109-124, DOI: 10.1080/14708477.2014.985309

110
Hustad, K. (2014, May 29). Google's diversity problem: 70 percent male, 2 percent black. The
Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2014/0529/Google-s-diversity-problem-70-
percent-male-2-percent-black-video
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin.
Idema, R., & Scheeres, H. (2003). Renegotiating knowing, doing and identity. Applied
Linguistics, 24, 316-337.
Isaac, M. (2017, March 28). Uber releases diversity report and repudiates its hard-changing
attitude. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/technology/uberscandal-diversity-report.html
Jaworski, A. (1995). “This is not an empty compliment!” Polish compliments and the expression
of solidarity. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 63-94.
Jones, S., Kerekes, & J., Rehner, K. (2016). Phatic Competence: How L2 Users Understand and
Engage in Phatic Communion. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(1), 109-
124, DOI: 10.1080/14708477.2014.985309
Kalla, H. (2006). Integrated communications in the multinational corporation (HSE Pub. A-280).
Helsinki School of Economics.
Klitmøller, A., & Lauring, J. (2013). When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media
richness, cultural difference and language commonality. Journal of World Business
48(3). 398–406.
Kuiper, K., & Flindall, M. (2000). Social rituals, formulaic speech and small talk at the
supermarket checkout. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 183–207). Longman.

111
Kulkarni, M., & Sommer, K. (2015). Language‐based exclusion and prosocial behaviors in
organizations. Human Resource Management, 54(4), 637-652.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21637
Labov, W. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York City, 2nd. Cambridge
University Press. [Originally published 1966]
Lancereau-Forster, N., & Martinez, J. (2018). Interlinguistic Insecurity in the Workplace, an
Issue for Higher Education. Language Learning in Higher Education, 8(2), 375-398.
doi:10.1515/cercles-2018-0021
Lancereau-Forster, N., & Martinez, J. (2015). La gestion linguistique des entreprises.
Communication at the Colloquium titled 1ères rencontres de l’Observatoire OULis.
University of Toulouse, 19th June (unpublished).
Lancereau-Forster, N. (2013). L’anglais comme langue de formation en IUT et langue de travail
dans le domaine aéronautique industriel. Thèse de doctorat. Université de Toulouse.
Landy, R. J. (1982). Handbook of educational drama and theater. Greenwood.
Laver, J. (1975). Communicative functions of phatic communion. In A. Kendon, R. Harris, & M.
Key (Eds.), The organisation of behavior in face-to-face interaction (pp. 215–238).
Mouton.
Lee, C. (2018, January 8). James Damore has sued Google. His infamous memo on women in
tech is still nonsense. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/11/16130452/googlememo-women-tech-biology-sexism
LEMP. 2015. Summary of survey report: Analysis of the foreign language skills requirements of
French employers. Erasmus.
http://www.ciep.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/lempsummary-survey-report.pdf

112
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at
work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the
United States (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Kankaanranta, A. (2011). Professional communication in a global
business context: The notion of global communicative competence. IEEE Transactions
on Professional Communication, 54(3), 244–262.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2011.2161844
Madrigal, A. C. (2017, May 24). Silicon Valley's Big Three vs. Detroit's Golden-Age Big Three:
Today’s tech giants dominate the U.S. economy like automotive companies did before
them, but what that dominance means has changed. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/silicon-valley-bigthree/527838/
Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2017). “Small talk is not cheap”: phatic computer-mediated communication in
intercultural classes. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(5), 432-446.
doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1304423
Mak, B.C.N., Chui, H.L. (2013). A cultural approach to small talk: a double-edged sword of
sociocultural reality during socialization into the workplace. Journal of multicultural
discourses, 8(2):118-133. doi:10.1080/17447143.2012.753078
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. Ogden & I.
Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 142-52). Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Manes, J. (1983). Compliments: A mirror of cultural values. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds).,
Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 96-102). Newbury House.

113
Manjoo, F. (2014, September 24). Exposing Hidden Bias at Google. New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/technology/exposing-hidden-biases-at-googletoimprove-diversity.html.
Mann, A., & Luo, T. (2010). Crash and reboot: Silicon Valley high tech employment and wages,
2000–08. Monthly Labor Review, 133(1), 59-73.
MarketWatch. (2020a). Apple Inc.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/AAPL/financials
MarketWatch. (2020b). Google Inc.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/GOOG/financials
Mauranen, A. (2006). Signalling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca
communication. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 177, 123-150.
McCarthy, M. J. (2000). Captive audiences: The discourse of close contact service encounters. In
J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 84–109). Longman.
McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2017). The economic and career effects of sexual
harassment on working women. Gender & Society, 31(3), 333-358.
Meierkord, C. (2008). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction. An analysis of nonnative/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik Online, 5, 1/00.
http://www.linguistik-online.com/1_00/MEIERKOR.HTM
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Metge, J. (1995). New growth from old: The whaanau in the modern world. Victoria University
Press.

114
Metge, J., & P. Kinloch, P. (1978). Talking past each other: problems of cross-cultural
communication. Wellington: Victoria University Press/Price Milburn.
Methot J.R., Rosado-Solomon E.H., Downes P.E., & Gabriel A.S. (2021). Office chitchat as a
social ritual: The uplifting yet distracting effects of daily small talk at work. Academy of
Management Journal, 64(5),1445-1471. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2018.1474
Microsoft. (2023). Global diversity & inclusion report 2023. Retrieved from
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/diversity/inside-microsoft/annual-report
Mullany, L. (2006). “Girls on tour”: Politeness, small talk, and gender in managerial business
meetings. Journal of Politeness Research : language, behaviour, culture, 2(1), 55-77.
doi:10.1515/PR.2006.004
Mundy, L. (2017, April). Why is Silicon Valley so awful to women? The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awfulto-women/517788/
National Science Board. (2002). Science and engineering indicator (NSB-02-1). National
Science Foundation.
Neeley, T. (2012). Global business speaks English. Harvard Business Review 90(5). 116–124.
Neeley, T. B. (2013). Language matters: Status loss and achieved Status distinctions in global
organizations. Organization Science, 24(2), 476–497.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0739
Neeley, T., Hinds, P. J., & Cramton, C. D. (2012). The (un)hidden turmoil of language in global
collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 41(3), 236–244.
Neeley, T. (2014). Language Investments Pay Big Dividends for Global Companies.
http://www.hbs.edu/news/articles/Pages/language-investments-pay-big-dividends.aspx.

115
Neeley, T. (2017). The Language of Global Success. Princeton University Press.
Nelson, L. R., Signorella, M. L., & Botti, K. G. (2016). Accent, gender, and perceived
competence. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 38(2), 166-185.
doi:10.1177/0739986316632319
Nguyen, Lam Thanh, "Employment Decisions as a Function of an Applicant's Accent" (2010).
Master's Theses. 3882. https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.fsr7-gmcu
Owens, TW., & Baker, P.M. (1984). Linguistic insecurity in Winnipeg: Validation of a Canadian
index of linguistic insecurity. Language in Society, 13. 337–350.
Ozkazanc-Pan, B. (2014). Postcolonial feminist analysis of high-technology entrepreneuring.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 20(2), 155-172.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-12-2011-0195
Palermo, O. (2002). Interpersonal communication and knowledge management. In A. Satzger. &
G. Poncini (Eds.), International perspectives on business communication (pp. 31-44).
Peter Lang.
Pao, E. (2017). Reset: My fight for inclusion and lasting change. Spiegel & Grau.
Pateman, T. (1980). Language, truth and politics: Towards a radical theory for communication.
Jean Stroud.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Percy, W. H., Kostere, K., & Dostere, S. (2015). Generic qualitative research in psychology. The
Qualitative Report, 20(2), 76-85.
Piazza, J. (2018, November 11). The quiet efforts to battle Silicon Valley's bro culture. Dow
Jones Institutional News.

116
Piekkari, R. (2008). Languages and careers in multinational corporations. In Suzanne Tietze
(ed.), International management and language, 128–137. Routledge.
Pittinsky, T. L. (2016, April 11). We’re making the wrong case for diversity in Silicon Valley.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/04/were-making-the-wrong-case-fordiversity-in-silicon-valley
Pomerantz, A. (1978) Compliment responses: notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints.
In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organisation of conversational interaction (pp. 79-
112). Academic Press.
Popper, B. (2017, May 16). The tech sector is leaving the rest of the US economy in its dust. The
Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/16/15627198/tech-sector-stock-market-recordhigh
Pullin, P. (2010). Small talk, rapport, and international communicative competence.
(Report). The Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 455-476.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610377307
Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in
Accounting & Management, 8(3), 238-264. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111162070
Reed, D. S. (2016). Diversity in tech remains elusive due to racism, lack of representation and
cultural differences. Model View Culture.
https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/diversityin-tech-remains-elusive-due-to-racismlack-of-representation-and-cultural-differences

117
Roberts, B., & Wolf, M. (2018, May). High-tech industries: an analysis of employment, wages,
and output. Beyond the Numbers, 7(7). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-7/high-tech-industries-an-analysis-of-employmentwages-and-output.htm?view_full
Roberts, C., Jupp, T., & Davies, E. (1992). Language and discrimination: A study of
communication in multi-ethnic workplaces. Longman.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2008). Participation and performance in international business meetings.
English for Specific Purposes, 27, 338-360.
Rowley, J. (2012). Conducting research interviews. Management Research Review, 35(3), 260-
271. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211210154
Russo, M., Islam, G., & Koyuncu, B. (2017). Non-native accents and stigma: How self-fulfilling
prophesies can affect career outcomes. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3),
507-520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.001.
Rydzik, A., & Ellis-Vowles, V. (2018). Don’t use ‘the weak word’: Women brewers, identities
and gendered territories. Work, Employment and Society.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018789553
Sandstrom, G.M., Dunn, E.W. (2014). Is efficiency overrated?: Minimal social interactions lead
to belonging and positive affect. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 5(4), 437-
442. doi:10.1177/1948550613502990
Schegloff, E. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.),
Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 101–134). Cambridge University
Press.

118
Schmid, P., & Yeni-Komshian, G. (1999). The effects of speaker accent and target predictability
on perception of mispronunciations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 42(1), 56-64. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4201.56
Schneider, K. (1987). Topic selection in phatic communication. Multilingua, 6, 247-256.
Schneider, K. (1988). Small talk: Analysing phatic discourse. Marburg, Germany: Hitzeroth.
Scollon, R. (1985). The machine stops: Silence in the metaphor of malfunction. In D. Tannen &
M. Saville-Troike (Eds.), Perspectives on silence (pp. 21–30). Ablex.
Scott, A., Kapor Klein, F., & Onovakpuri, U. (2017). Tech Leaver's Study. Kapor Center for
Social Impact.
Sechelski, A. N., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2019). A call for enhancing saturation at the qualitative
data analysis stage via the use of multiple qualitative data analysis approaches. The
Qualitative Report, 24(4), 795-821.
Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), 339–341.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci064
Seidman, I. (2019). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Shevinsky, E. (2015). Lean out: The struggle for gender equality in tech and start-up culture.
OR Books.
Silicon Valley Bank Hires Chief Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Officer. (2020, Dec 2). Dow
Jones Institutional News.
Sligo, F. (1990). Business communication: New Zealand perspectives. Palmerston North, NZ:
Software Technology.

119
Snyder, K. (2014, July 23). How to get ahead as a woman in tech: Interrupt men. Slate.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/07/study-men-interrupt-women-more-in-techworkplaces-but-high-ranking-women-learn-to-interrupt.html
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey
(Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 11-46).
Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore
the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatic,
34, 529-545.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpacking their bases
and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 95-119.
Stahl, N. A., & King, J. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using
trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26-
29.
Stivers T., Enfield NJ., Brown P., Englert C., Hayashi M., Heinemann T., Hoymann G., Rossano
F., de Ruiter JP., Yoon KE., Levinson SC. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking
in conversation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 30;106(26):10587-92.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
Surmiak, A. D. (2018). Confidentiality in qualitative research involving vulnerable participants:
Researchers' perspectives. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(3).
Tan, J. (2008). Breaking the ‘bamboo curtain’ and the ‘glass ceiling’: The experience of women
entrepreneurs in high-tech industries in an emerging market. Journal of Business Ethics,
80(3), 547-564.

120
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational
discourse. Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5. Virago Press.
TechAmerica Foundation. (2015). About the tech industry. Retrieved from
http://www.techamericafoundation.org/abouttech)
Tenzer, H., & Pudelko, M. (2015). Leading across language barriers: Managing languageinduced emotions in multilingual teams. Leadership Quarterly, 26(4), 606–625.
Thomas, G., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. (2009). The central role of communication in developing
trust and its effect on employee involvement. Journal of Business Communication, 46,
287-310.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
Thornborrow, J. (2003). The organization of primary school children's on-task and off-task talk
in a small group setting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(1), 7-32,
https://doi.org/10.1207/Coupland, 20035327973RLSI3601_2
Thuessen, F. (2017). Thuessen, F., 2017 Linguistic barriers and bridges: constructing social
capital. Work, Employment & Society, 31(6), 937-953.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017016656321
Torres, N. (2017, May 4). The H-1B visa debate, explained. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2017/05/the-h-1b-visa-debate-explained
Tracy, K. & Naughton, J. M. (2000). Institutional identity work: A better lens. In J. Coupland
(Ed.), Small talk (pp. 62–83). Longman.

121
Trump, D. J. (2020). Proclamation suspending entry of aliens who present a risk to the U.S. labor
market following the coronavirus outbreak. The White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspending-entry-alienspresent-risk-u-s-labor-market-following-coronavirus-outbreak/
Twine, F. W. (2018). Technology's invisible women: Black geek girls in Silicon Valley and the
failure of diversity initiatives. International Journal of Critical Diversity Studies, 1(1),
58-79.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014). Labor force statistics from the current population survey.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services. (2020, December 1). H-1B specialty occupations,
DOD cooperative research and development project workers, and fashion models.
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialtyoccupations-dod-cooperative-research-and-development-project-workers-and-fashion
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2023). H-1B program. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/h-1b-specialtyoccupations
Vollstedt, M. (2002). English as a language for internal company communications. In K. Knapp
& C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua franca communication (pp. 87-107). Peter Lang.
Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. Penn State Press.
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semistructured methods. Sage.
Wikipedia. (n.d.). English as a lingua franca. In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_a_lingua_franca

122
Wilson, E. O., & Spaulding, T. J. (2010). Effects of noise and speech intelligibility on listener
comprehension and processing time of Korean-accented English. Journal of Speech,
Language and Hearing Research (Online), 53(6), 1543-1554A.
https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0100)
Wolf, M., & Terrell, D. (2016). The high-tech industry, what is it and why it matters to our
economic future. Beyond the Numbers: Employment and Unemployment, vol. 5, no. 8
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2016), https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-5/
the-high-tech-industry-what-is-it-and-why-it-matters-to-our-economic-future.htm
Yeong, M. L., Ismail, R., Ismail, N. H., & Hamzah, M. I. (2018). Interview protocol refinement:
Fine-tuning qualitative research interview questions for multi-racial populations in
malaysia. The Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2700-2713.
Yi, H., Smiljanic, R., & Chandrasekaran, B. (2014). The neural processing of foreign-accented
speech and its relationship to listener bias. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(768), 1-
12. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00768
Young, R. W., & Faux, W.V. (2012). Native and non-native English Speakers’ perspectives of
ineffectiveness and inappropriateness in difficult conversations. Communication
Research Reports, 29(3), 185-192. doi:10.1080/08824096.2012.684807
Young, R., & Faux, W. V. (2011). Descriptions of difficult conversations between native and
non-native English speakers: In-group membership and helping behaviors. The
Qualitative Report, 16(2), 494-508. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol16/iss2/10
Yuan, Y., Liu, P., Liu, B., Cui, Z. (2024). Small talk and knowledge sharing: a moderated dualfacilitating pathway model based on interpersonal trust and perceived similarity. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 28(6):1538-1565. doi:10.1108/JKM-02-2023-0130

123
Zorn, T., & Violanti, M. (1996). Communication abilities and individual achievement in
organisations. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 139-167.

124
Appendix A: Study Invitation
Dear ________:
My name is Eleanor Arabia and I am a student at the University of Southern California working
on my Doctor of Education in Organizational Change and Leadership degree. I am conducting a
research study entitled Nonnative English Speakers Negotiating Small Talk in High Tech
Workplaces.
The purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of nonnative English speakers
negotiating unscripted social conversations in high tech workplaces and the impact of these
conversations on the speakers’ ability to build and maintain beneficial relationships in the
workplace.
The criteria to participate in this study are that:
• you immigrated to the United States for employment
• you have worked in a professional capacity for more than 1 year onsite at a high
technology company in Silicon Valley
• you are a nonnative English language speaker
• you can carry on conversation in English
Your participation would involve an interview of 60 minutes conducted via Zoom. The interview
conversation will be video recorded.
Participation is voluntary and confidential. You would not be identified in the study and any
answers you provide would be pooled with others’ responses and reported in aggregate.
If you have any questions about the research study or would like to participate, please call me at
408-888-3332 or email me at earabia@usc.edu.
I sincerely thank you for your help!
Eleanor Arabia

125
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
INFORMED CONSENT FOR RESEARCH
Study Title: Nonnative English Speakers Negotiating Small Talk in High Tech Workplaces
Principal Investigator: Eleanor Arabia
Department: Rossier School of Education
INTRODUCTION
We invite you to take part in a research study. Please take as much time as you need to read the
consent form. You may want to discuss it with your family, friends, or your personal doctor. If
you find any of the language difficult to understand, please ask questions. If you decide to
participate, you will be asked to sign this form. A copy of the signed form will be provided to
you for your records.
KEY INFORMATION
The following is a short summary of this study to help you decide whether you should
participate. More detailed information is listed later in this form.
1. Being in this research study is voluntary–it is your choice.
2. You are being asked to take part in this study because you are a nonnative English
language speaker working in a professional capacity at a high technology company in
Silicon Valley for one or more years. The purpose of this study is to examine the
experiences of nonnative English speakers negotiating unscripted social conversations
in high tech workplaces and the impact of these conversations on the speakers’ ability
to build and maintain beneficial relationships in the workplace. Your participation in
this study will last for the duration of the interview, approximately one hour.
Procedures will include a one-hour videotaped interview via Zoom where you will be
asked questions about your background, job responsibilities, and experiences with
social conversations in the workplace.
3. There are risks from participating in this study. The most common risks are
inconvenience as the study will take away from your personal and professional time,
emotional discomfort as you reflect on your workplace experiences, and possible
breach of confidentiality. More detailed information about the risks of this study can
be found under the “Risk and Discomfort” section.
4. You may not receive any direct benefit from taking part in this study. However, your
participation in this study may help us learn how to make workplace environments
more equitable and inclusive.

126
5. You may decide not to participate in this research.
DETAILED INFORMATION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of nonnative English speakers
negotiating unscripted social conversations in high tech workplaces and the impact of these
conversations on the speakers’ ability to build and maintain beneficial relationships in the
workplace. We hope to learn what, if any, barriers nonnative English speakers face engaging in
informal social conversations in the workplace and how that impacts their ability to create and
maintain beneficial workplace relationships. You are invited as a possible participant because
you are a nonnative English language speaker working in a professional capacity at a high
technology company in Silicon Valley for one or more years. About ten participants will take
part in the study.
PROCEDURES
If you decide to take part, this is what will happen:
1. You will participate in an approximately one-hour interview via Zoom with the
researcher.
2. You will be asked questions about your background, language skills, job responsibilities,
and experiences navigating informal social conversations in the workplace.
3. The interview will be video recorded and a written transcript of the interview will be
created.
RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Possible risks and discomforts you could experience during this study include emotional
discomfort as you reflect on your workplace experiences.
Interviews: Some of the questions may make you feel uneasy or embarrassed. You can choose
to skip or stop answering any questions you don’t want to.
Breach of Confidentiality: There is a small risk that people who are not connected with this
study will learn your identity or your personal information.

127
BENEFITS
There are no direct benefits to you from taking part in this study. However, your
participation in this study may help us learn how to make workplaces more equitable and
inclusive.
PRIVACY/CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However,
if we are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you.
Efforts will be made to limit the use and disclosure of your personal information, including
research study and medical records, to people who are required to review this information.
We may publish the information from this study in journals or present it at meetings. If we
do, we will not use your name.
The University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) may review your
records.
Your data will be deidentified, password protected, and safely stored on the researcher’s personal
computer for five years, in accordance with American Psychological Association (APA)
guidelines. Only the researcher will have access to the data in its original format, including the
video recorded data. The researcher’s dissertation committee members will have access to the
deidentified written transcripts of the interviews for the purpose of assisting and approving the
work of the researcher.
Your information that is collected as part of this research will be used or distributed for future
research studies without your additional informed consent. Any information that identifies you

128
(such as your name) will be removed from your private information or samples before being
shared with others.
ALTERNATIVES
There may be alternative(s) to participating in this study. These include not participating
in this study.
PAYMENTS
You will be compensated with a $25 Starbucks gift card for your participation in this research.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
It is your choice whether to participate. If you choose to participate, you may change your mind
and leave the study at any time. Refusal to participate or stopping your participation will involve
no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.
If you stop being in the research, already collected data may not be removed from the study
database. You will be asked whether the investigator can continue to collect data from your
records. If you agree, this data will be handled the same as the research data. No new information
or samples will be collected about you or from you by the study team without your permission.
The study site may still, after your withdrawal, need to report any safety event that you may have
experienced due to your participation to all entities involved in the study. Your personal
information, including any identifiable information, that has already been collected up to the
time of your withdrawal will be kept and used to guarantee the integrity of the study, to
determine the safety effects, and to satisfy any legal or regulatory requirements.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, complaints, or think the research has hurt you, talk to the
investigator, Eleanor Arabia by phone at 408-888-3332 or by email at earabia@usc.edu.
This research has been reviewed by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a
research review board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and
welfare of research participants. Contact the IRB if you have questions about your rights as a

129
research participant or you have complaints about the research. You may contact the IRB at
(323) 442-0114 or by email at irb@usc.edu.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been given a
chance to ask questions. All my questions have been answered. By signing this form, I am
agreeing to take part in this study.
Name of Research Participant Signature Date Signed
(and Time*)
Person Obtaining Consent
I have personally explained the research to the participant using non-technical language. I have
answered all the participant’s questions. I believe that the participant understands the information
described in this informed consent and freely consents to participate.
Name of Person Obtaining Signature Date Signed
Informed Consent (and Time*)
Witness
A Witness is Required When: (1) the participant cannot see, read, write, or physically sign
the consent form, or (2) the Short Form method is used to obtain consent. In these
situations, the witness must sign and date the consent form. If no witness is needed, leave
this signature line blank.
Name of Witness Signature Date Signed

130
Appendix C: Interview Protocol
Thank you for meeting with me today. My name is Eleanor Arabia, and I am a doctoral student
in Education at the University of Southern California. I appreciate your agreeing to participate in
the study and the time you have set aside to answer some of my questions. The interview should
take about one hour.
Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of what we will be talking about
today and answer any questions you might have about participating. This interview is part of a
study I am working on looking at experiences building connections and a sense of belonging in
high technology workplaces in Silicon Valley. More specifically, I am looking at the informal
workplace social conversations of professionals who speak English as an additional (second)
language. I want to systematically capture all of the success and challenges that you would like
to share around your experiences with making small talk at work. Do you have any questions
about the study or the purpose of today’s conversation?
I want to assure you that everything said here today is strictly confidential. All of the findings
will be reported in the aggregate. When I use an actual quote from a participant, I will indicate
that it is from a “participant” so that no names will ever be associated with the findings. I also
want to assure you that none of the data I collect will be shared with other participants or
employers. Do you have any questions for me?
If you have questions about your rights while taking part in this study, or you have concerns
or suggestions and you want to talk to someone other than me about the study, you may
contact the IRB at (323) 442-0114 or by email at irb@usc.edu.
The last couple of things that I would like to cover include the logistics of the interview process.
I will be audio and video recording our video conference call today, so that I can accurately
capture what you share. The recording helps me focus on our conversation and not on taking
notes. If at any time you wish me to stop recording, please let me know, and you may make
comments “off the record.” Your participation in all aspects of data collection is completely
voluntary. May I have your permission to record and get started?
1. I thought we could start with a bit of background. What brought you to work at Company
X?
• How long have you worked there?
2. I’m interested in learning more about what you do here at the company. Can you tell me
about your role?
• How long have you been in the role?
• What are your major responsibilities?
• How many hours do you work in a typical week?
• Do you work closely with a team or is your work more independent?

131
3. Can you describe a typical day at work?
• What are your hours?
• How many days are you in the office vs. remote?
• Do you travel for work?
4. Can you tell me a bit more about what it’s like working at Company X?
• What do you like the best?
• What do you like the least?
• Is there anything you would change?
• What happens here that might not happen at any other company?
5. Is this the first U.S.-based company you have worked for?
• What’s it like immigrating to the U.S. for work?
• How long have been working in the U.S.?
6. I’m interested in your language learning history. So, X is your first language?
• And you grew up in Country Y?
• Did both your parents speak X?
• Were any other languages spoken at home?
• Did you grow up learning to speak English?
• How old were you when you started learning English?
• Did you go to school in English?
7. Silicon Valley is really unique in that people come from all over the world to work here.
And companies have a real multicultural workforce. In what ways is it hard, if at all,
working with people who grew up speaking different languages?
• Does communication ever break down?
• What do people do when communication breaks down?
• Is it harder at certain times than others? (e.g., conference calls)
• What might make it easier?
8. What’s it like for you to speak English at work?
• I’ve heard people say it’s easier to talk about work-related topics than have more
social conversations at work.
• Is this true for you and, if so, how?
9. How do you feel about talking about work topics versus social talk in the office?
• What makes social talk easier / harder?
• Can you think of anything that might make it easier?
10. To what extent do you chat with your colleagues during the day?
• Tell me about the conversations you have with your coworkers
• What do you share in those conversations?

132
• What do you think prevents more conversations?
• What do you think makes those conversations hard?
• I’m wondering if those conversations are uncomfortable for you? and why?
11. What typically happens at meetings? Are they very formal or do people have a chance to
chat beforehand?
• What kinds of things do people talk about before the meeting?
• Do you talk about the same things before the meetings?
• What are your thoughts on these conversations?
12. How about conversations at other times of the day? I’ve heard the food at X is excellent.
What do you usually do for lunch?
• Do people eat together? Do you eat with other people?
• What kinds of things do you talk about with people at lunch?
13. What, if anything, is different now with working from home and attending meetings
virtually?
• Do you have your camera on for meetings?
• Is there conversation before meetings begin or after?
• Do you use the chat function?
14. If you had a personal problem, whom, if anyone, would you confide in at work?
• What kind of support do you think they might give?
15. Sometimes there is an informal network in the workplace. People have others they can
rely on to help with an urgent or unusual request. Do you think that exists at Company X?
• If you needed a favor at work, who would you ask for help?
16. To what extent do employees hang out together after work or on the weekend?
• Do you consider any of your coworkers your friends?
17. What hobbies do you have outside of work?
• Do you like to read?
• What types of things do you read?
• Do you read in English or in your first language, X?
18. Is there anything I haven’t asked about that you think it’s important for me to know?
• We covered a lot of ground, anything else?
Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. I really enjoyed hearing about
your experiences and learning more about what you do. I will be compiling and analyzing my
data over the next couple of months. I’d be happy to circle back and share my findings with you
if you’d like. Thanks again, I really appreciate your time today.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines how nonnative English speakers navigate small talk within Silicon Valley's high technology sector, highlighting the linguistic, cultural, and structural challenges they face. The research investigates three main questions: the experiences of the employees during informal conversations, the obstacles they encounter, and the impact on their ability to cultivate social capital at work. Eleven individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds participated in semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis of the findings revealed that linguistic insecurities, cultural unfamiliarity, and workplace demands hinder participation in small talk, creating barriers to social belonging and professional integration. The study suggests that supportive leadership and well-planned organizational processes can mitigate these challenges. Furthermore, employing inclusive communication strategies enhances employee connections and boosts productivity. Participants emphasized the crucial role of leadership in fostering opportunities for casual conversation, as well as the detrimental effects of remote or hybrid work models on informal communications. The findings stress the importance of addressing biases, building culturally sensitive workplaces, and creating environments where all employees can thrive socially and professionally. Recommendations include targeted communication training, leadership development, and the adoption of inclusive policies and practices. Future research is needed to explore these dynamics across various industries and evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed interventions. This study contributes to the understanding of the interplay between language, culture, and workplace dynamics, offering practical solutions for fostering inclusive and collaborative environments.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Cultural diversity of dance in higher education: the hip hop remix

PDF

Examining the underemployment of persons with disabilities in the workplace

PDF

“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges

PDF

The underrepresentation of African Americans in information technology: an examination of social capital and its impact on African Americans’ career success

PDF

Navigating cultural integration: challenges and strategies for Taiwanese technology companies expanding into the United States

PDF

Workplace neurodiverse equity

PDF

"We belong": women of color in technology (WOCT)

PDF

Leadership development and retention strategies: a curriculum for middle managers learning

PDF

Belonging in America: Black Muslim refugee women’s’ trials and triumphs in the workplace

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

Black women in tech: examining experiences in tech industry workplaces

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

European higher education fundraising: a Spanish field study

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

IT belongingness: from outcasts to technology leaders in higher education – a promising practice

PDF

The underrepresentation of teacher perspectives on effective elementary principal leadership behaviors in rural North Carolina school districts

PDF

Gender role beliefs of male senior leaders in retail and the impact on women’s advancement

PDF

Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners

PDF

Cultivating workplace belonging through managerial impact

Asset Metadata

Creator Arabia, Eleanor Marie (author)

Core Title Nonnative English speakers negotiating small talk in high technology workplaces

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2025-05

Publication Date 01/31/2025

Defense Date 01/17/2025

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag belonging,high technology,inclusion,nonnative English speakers,OAI-PMH Harvest,Silicon Valley,small talk,social capital

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Ashtari, Nooshan (committee member), Dewing, Stephanie (committee member)

Creator Email earabia@usc.edu,eleanor.arabia@gmail.com

Unique identifier UC11399GBWN

Identifier etd-ArabiaElea-13804.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ArabiaElea-13804

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Arabia, Eleanor Marie

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20250204-usctheses-batch-1240 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu