University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Building equity for English language learners: technology employees in Fortune 500 companies

(USC Thesis Other)

Building equity for English language learners: technology employees in Fortune 500 companies

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Building Equity for English Language Learners:
Technology Employees in Fortune 500 Companies

Karen Anne Travis

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation presented to the faculty
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2022

© Copyright by Karen Anne Travis 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Karen Anne Travis certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Cathy Sloane Krop
Ekaterina Moore
Emmy J. Min, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Given the labor shortage of highly skilled technical professionals in the United States and the
influx of English Language Learners (ELLs) to address this, and predictions for this trend to
continue and accelerate, organizations must provide equity to harness the full potential of ELLs.
Equity focused on ELLs will deliver increased profitability, innovation, and organizational
climate improvement opportunities. The study population comprised ELLs working in
technology roles at Fortune 500 companies in January and February 2022. In total, 23 ELLs
completed a 50-question survey, and seven completed a 1-hour interview. Based on survey data,
participants speak 16 languages (other than English) and represent all generations in the working
population from 18–65. Overall, 17% of respondents spoke three or more languages, including
English, 38% were born in the United States, and 62% were born outside the United States in
seven different countries. Then, 50% of respondents indicated they prefer speaking English with
family and friends even when not at work. ELLs participating in this study are highly educated,
with 20% holding a doctoral degree, 60% holding a master’s degree, and 20% holding a
bachelor’s degree. Participants were supervisors, team leaders, and individual contributors. The
study intentionally excluded senior-level executives. The research and the literature indicate that
organizations must create equity focused on ELLs. In particular, surveys and interviews
identified oral presentation skills as an area of interest for ELLs. The study presents five
recommendations, including creating a community of practice focused on building ELLs’
presentation skills. The literature and a cost-benefit analysis support the recommendations as
methodologically sound and cost-effective, offering organizations opportunities to improve
bottom-line results.

v
Keywords: artificial intelligence, discrimination, diversity, ecological systems model,
English as a Second Language (ESL), English language learner (ELL), equity, Fortune 500
companies, global economy, highly-skill professionals, inclusion, labor shortage, language
standards, mobile-assisted language learning, technology

vi
Dedication
To Mom. Your encouragement and unconditional love inspire me. My words are inadequate to
express my gratitude for everything you have done to bring me a lifetime of happiness and joy.

To Dad. Your leadership lessons at work, home, and church led me to this day. You are not here
to see this, but your unconditional love and support are manifested in every word, on every page.

vii
Acknowledgments
As Madeline Albright said, “there is a special place in Hell reserved for those who
receive recognition and do not share credit.” Thank you to my Trojan family, beginning with my
Cohort 14 classmates, who made this journey enjoyable and memorable. When we started in
May 2019, we rose to the challenge of late-night classes (for the East Coast) and a lot of reading.
Then there were papers, and we persevered through the unexpected twists and turns of the next
three years, including COVID-19. I am forever grateful for each of you and proud to call you my
friends. Along the way, there were 13 classes with 14 professors; each was exceptional, but two
deserve special mention. Thank you to Dr. Eric Canny, who made our first class—which could
have been dreadful—rigorous and fun. He created a solid foundation for what lay ahead and
encouraged me to purse this dissertation topic, cementing my path forward. Thank you to Dr.
Derisa Grant, who facilitated our diversity class with grace and humor, and spent countless hours
each week answering our exit ticket questions. Her guidance on language discrimination was
crucial to shaping this dissertation.
Of course, thank you to my committee, led by Dr. Emmy Min. Dr. Min was not among
the 14 exceptional professors above, but her support was instrumental from beginning to end. Dr.
Cathy Sloan Krop, your early feedback was helpful. You recommended literature and suggested
ways to explore and connect my nascent ideas about ELLs’ workplace experiences in corporate
America. Your gift for asking questions always inspired thoughtful consideration, which has
helped me tell a compelling story. Dr. Ekaterina Moore, you also provided helpful feedback on
class assignments. Your detailed contributions to this final document have made this a much
better product.

viii
Beyond school: Thank you to Bill, Hyok, Sally, and Susie; your recommendation letters
must have been stellar! Thank you to my family and friends who didn’t say, “Are you crazy?”
when I told them I was pursuing this degree. You know who you are, and I dare not start listing
names for fear of forgetting one of you. Your phone calls, emails, text messages, care packages,
virtual hugs, and prayers helped me throughout this process, more than you can imagine. With
COVID-19 and this dissertation in the rearview mirror, I look forward to spending more time
together, laughing, and traveling and less time typing, editing, and editing some more!
Lastly, I would be remiss not to thank Cris Manko, CRNP, CDE, and Dr. Neal
Zimmerman, hand surgeon extraordinaire, who have been members of my healthcare team for
decades. Your skills, wisdom, and the many laughs we have shared over the years have given me
the good health necessary to do this work, as I turned my thoughts into the text on these pages.

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiv
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 3
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 3
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Study Participants ............................................................................................................... 5
Overview of the Theoretical Framework and Methodology............................................... 6
Key Terminology and Definitions ...................................................................................... 8
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 12
English Language Learners in the Workplace .................................................................. 12
Sizing Up the Problem: United States Workplace Demographics and Trends ................. 13
Building Equity for English Language Learners .............................................................. 26
Workplace Solutions That Support English Language Learners ...................................... 27
Technology and Language Learning ................................................................................ 30
Organizational Culture and Change Management ............................................................ 34
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model as a Conceptual Framework ..................... 36
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 39
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 41
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 41

x
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 41
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 44
Paradigm of Inquiry .......................................................................................................... 45
Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................................... 47
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 48
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 48
Research Ethics ................................................................................................................. 56
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 58
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 60
Results and Findings for Research Question 1 ................................................................. 61
Findings and Results for Research Question 2 ............................................................... 103
Approaches to Equity ...................................................................................................... 123
Summary of Results and Findings .................................................................................. 125
Chapter Five: Recommendations for Practice ............................................................................ 127
Discussion of the Recommendations .............................................................................. 127
Recommendations for Building Equity .......................................................................... 130
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 146
Implementation and Evaluation ...................................................................................... 147
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 148
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 150
References ................................................................................................................................... 154
Appendix A: Participant Invitation Email/Post to Social Media ................................................ 188
Appendix B: Participant Survey ................................................................................................. 189
Demographic Data ......................................................................................................... 201
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 205

xi
Appendix D: Detailed Cost Benefit Analyses ............................................................................ 208

xii
List of Tables
Table 1: Research Questions (RQ) and Study Data Sources 43
Table 2: Themes Identified for Research Questions 1 and 2 60
Table 3: Survey Participant Demographics 62
Table 4: Languages Spoken by Survey Participants (Not Including English) 64
Table 5: Industry Representation 66
Table 6: Survey Participants Distributed by Age Group 68
Table 7: Interview Participant Demographics 70
Table 8: Job Satisfaction 72
Table 9: Ability to Apply Skills and Experience on the Job 74
Table 10: Ability to Do Interesting Work 75
Table 11: Teams’ Contributions to ELLs’ Workplace Experience 76
Table 12: ELLs’ Relationship With Their Supervisors 84
Table 13: Satisfaction With Supervisor’s Feedback 91
Table 14: Amount of Feedback Received From Supervisor 92
Table 15: Frequency of Valuable Feedback From the Supervisor 93
Table 16: Satisfaction With Employer Learning Opportunities 104
Table 17: Supervisors’ Learning Recommendations for Current and Future Roles 105
Table 18: Satisfaction With Oral Presentation Skills 108
Table 19: Learning Opportunities for Oral Presentation Skills 109
Table 20: Individual Professional Development Methods Ranked by Percent Utilized 111
Table 21 Individual Professional Development Methods Ranked by Hours Utilized 112
Table 22: Employee Resource Group (ERG) Participation Rates 113

xiii
Table 23: Employee Resource Groups Mentioned by ELLs 116
Table 24: Community of Practice (COP) Participation Rates 117
Table 25: Communities of Practice Mentioned by ELLs 118
Table 26: Cost-Benefit Analysis: COP for ELLs Focused on Oral Presentation Skills 132
Table 27: Recommendation 1: Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 133
Table 28: Cost-Benefit Analysis: MALL-AI for Presentation Skills 137
Table 29: Recommendation 2: Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 137
Table 30: Cost-Benefit Analysis: Employee Resource Group for ELLs 140
Table 31 Recommendation 3: Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 141
Table D1: The Decreasing Cost of Conflict 209
Table D2: The Decreasing Cost of Turnover 209
Table D3: Costs to Establish a Community of Practice With MALL-AI for ELLs 209
Table D4: Benefits to Establish a Community of Practice With MALL-AI for ELLs 210
Table D5: Costs to Provide MALL-AI for Presentation Skills 210
Table D6: Benefits to Provide MALL-AI for Presentation Skills 211
Table D7: Costs to Establish an Employee Resource Group Focused on ELLs 211
Table D8: Benefits to Establish an Employee Resource Group Focused on ELLs 212

xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: An Ecological Systems Model for English Language Learners in the Workplace 37
Figure 2: Survey Participants by Location 67
Figure 3: Job Satisfaction and Overall DEI 73
Figure 4: Equity and the Department/Team 77
Figure 5: Inclusion in the Mesosystem 79
Figure 6: Team Versus Diversity 81
Figure 7: Overall Inclusion Versus Respect 83
Figure 8: Supervisor Versus Diversity 86
Figure 9: Inclusion in the Microsystem 87
Figure 10: Equity and the Supervisor 88
Figure 11: Job Satisfaction Versus the Supervisory Relationship 94
Figure 12: Overall DEI Versus the Supervisory Relationship 95
Figure 13: e-NPS for ELLs 96
Figure 14: e-NPS Detractors, Passives, and Promoters, 97
Figure 15: e-NPS Versus Job Satisfaction 98
Figure 16: Diversity Versus the Organization 99
Figure 17: Inclusion in the Organization 102
Figure 18: How Necessary Are Oral Presentation Skills to Advance Your Career and Earn
a Promotion? 107

Figure 19: Equity and the Company/Organization 120
1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
This study explores the lived experience of English language learner (ELL) technology
workers in Fortune 500 companies to advance ideas for building equity. The population of ELL
technical professionals in the United States increases as industries address labor shortages with
workers for whom English is not the first language (Floyd, 2012). Talent gaps exist in as many
as 36% of organizations (Manpower, 2014) and present a barrier to sustainable economic growth
(World Economic Forum, 2011). It is expected that employers will face significant labor
shortages (Strack et al., 2014) between 2020 and 2030. As evidenced in the literature, labor
shortages are not new and continue to be experienced (Charlton & Kostandini, 2021; Mallick &
Soursa, 2017; Penrod, 2019).
The United States has positioned itself as a world power and strengthened its position by
improving education levels and increasing diversity. The demographic eclipse (Brownstein,
2011) created by population shifts has created a minority-majority, as noted in the 2005 Census
Bureau’s American Community Survey. This means that, for the first time, the White working
class fell below 50%. This new reality has brought stressors for native and non-native speakers in
the workplace (Kim et al., 2019) as they collaborate to meet an organization’s goals and
objectives.
In 2014, the U.S. foreign-born, non-native population was 42 million and this group is
expected to reach 78 million by 2060. In contrast to this substantial 85% growth in the non-
native U.S. population, the native population is predicted to grow by only 22%. Thus, the
foreign-born population will represent 19% of the population by 2060, with the majority being
adults over age 17 (Colby & Ortman, 2015).
2

ELLs face challenges in businesses as varied as hospitality, healthcare, and
manufacturing, including highly skilled workers with advanced degrees and training. Beyond
language, workers face difficulties transitioning from the classroom to the workplace (O’Neill,
2011). Employees who do not share a standard schema have difficulties understanding and
responding to communication (Wolfington, 2002). An ELL may not understand directions and is
unsure how to ask a question without appearing to be difficult. Individuals who have difficulty
speaking fluent English may be perceived as less intelligent despite intense classroom learning
(Knight, 2016). Supervisors tend to make assumptions about the ELLs’ intelligence, and the ELL
may not feel comfortable socializing with coworkers.
A doctor or nurse might excel on a test or in a simulated practice environment but falter
in the real-time execution of their skills while working with patients (Elder et al., 2012).
Business professionals have tended to find pronunciation errors more problematic than grammar
mistakes (Coupland & Bishop, 2007), and ELLs have shown stress and frustration in their
interactions with coworkers (Madera et al., 2014). Businesses typically view limited English
proficiency (LEP) as a problem to be solved by the language learner (L2). Few employers have
focused on building programs that help create an inclusive workplace, specifically for ELLs
(Rosheim, 2015; U.S. Department of Labor, 2004).
Employers must be more active in building equity to meet business objectives. Annual
growth rate projections are 2.6%, while labor force projections are 0.6%. Despite this gap, a
Society for Human Resource Management study (Coombs, 2015) indicated that only slightly
more than 33% of employers are preparing for these demographic changes.
3

Context and Background of the Problem
This study focused on building equity that will address the challenges ELLs face in the
high-technology workplace. Language diversity impacts the relationship between the ELL and
their supervisor, power dynamics on a team, role clarity, and other factors important to their job
performance and career progression.
Communication is the most demanded competence by organizations (Matthewman,
2011). As the number of L2 workers grows, the number of languages spoken grows (Colby &
Ortman, 2015), and employers fail to create programs that effectively address the complexities of
a “superdiversity” (Vertovec¸ 2007, p. 1024). Most interventions take a one-size-fits-all approach
(American Society for Training & Development, 2014), focusing on the individual rather than
the organizational systems perpetuating persistent inequalities (Block & Noumair, 2015).
This study explores the workplace experience of ELL technology professionals in
Fortune 500 companies and makes recommendations for creating more equitable organizations.
In addition to quantitative and qualitative data from ELLs, the study considered the successful
diversity programs already used by many employers. These include employee resource groups
(ERG), communities of practice (COP), and the principles of computer-assisted learning and
artificial intelligence. When organizations offer equity-driven programs, a sense of community
and connection influence participation (Gumusluoglu et al., 2013), and individuals are motivated
to learn with a cohort (King & Juniper, 2017).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study aims to create ideas for equity that will support the success of ELLs in the
technology workplace. Specifically, this study examined the workplace experience of ELL
4

employees to provide perspective and context for their suggestions on building equity for ELLs.
The research questions that frame this study are as follows:
1. How do English language learner technology workers perceive their workplace
experience related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in Fortune 500 companies?
2. In the context of their workplace experience, what suggestions do English language
learners have for employers to create equitable solutions that eliminate barriers to
success in the workplace?
Importance of the Study
The ELL population is becoming increasingly linguistically diverse. The influx of ELL
workers, as seen in the census data, is pervasive across the United States and is no longer just an
issue for big cities or technology hubs like Silicon Valley. As of 2010, the non-Hispanic White
demographic was the single largest group, representing 50% of the U.S. population (Colby &
Ortman, 2015). By 2060, changing demographics indicate that non-Hispanic Whites will only
represent 44% of the population. Comparative census data from 2010 and 2021 indicates that
language and workforce trends are accelerating faster than predicted (U.S. Census Bureau,
2020).
In addition to demographic trends, the changing nature of work has impacted ELL
workers. Workers must participate in collaborative teams and be critical thinkers and problem
solvers (Moore, 1999). This new workplace approach means individual efforts are connected to
their coworkers. Problems created in a “new work order” will not fix themselves, making it more
difficult for ELL workers to cope with these changing dynamics. As studied by Moore, the
written and verbal skills of ELL workers were rarely commensurate with native speakers.
However, on the positive side, the value of cross-cultural collaboration can foster an
5

environment that promotes creativity and innovation (Goodman, 2017), and Kalarao (2004)
noted that acknowledging cultural differences is key to breaching the language barrier.
Without understanding the perspectives of the ELL employees, employers will not be
successful in providing equity to make the necessary gains in key performance indicators (KPIs)
that affect revenue and profitability. ELLs represent a disproportionate share of KPIs, including
increased turnover (Madera et al., 2014), absenteeism, and medical errors, and ELLs suffer when
employers do not address equity. Beyond performance and profitability, a failure to address
language barriers can create legal issues for the organization as courts consider language
discrimination the same as race or gender discrimination.
Although United States Census Bureau projections indicate the ELL population is
growing at a slightly slower pace, this does not diminish the need to address the issues they face.
Employers must address the new workplace dynamics created by globalization and a lack of
high-skilled technical professionals. When organizations support ELLs, they will see results, and
ELL employees will not only survive but thrive and flourish.
Study Participants
This study focused on ELLs’ experiences to identify essential factors contributing to
workplace success. Participants are highly skilled information technology (IT) professionals
(e.g., analysts, programmers, database architects, systems administrators, web developers,
software engineers, and IT project managers) working in Fortune 500 companies across the
United States during January and February 2022. More than 125 potential participants were
recruited via an individual email from the researcher. These individuals were encouraged to
participate if they met the study criteria and to invite other co-workers and colleagues to
participate. Social media postings were listed on three LinkedIn technology groups and the
6

American Education Research Association (AERA) Second Language Special Interest Group.
Analyzing the qualitative and quantitative data has guided our recommendations and
solutions. In total, 25 individuals responded to 50 survey questions, and two individuals were
removed from the analysis because they did not meet the study criteria. Nine people
volunteered to complete the optional 1-hour interview, and seven completed the process,
answering eight semi-structured interview questions. Detailed data analysis is included in
Chapter Four, with recommendations presented in Chapter Five.
ELLs represent a significant and growing portion of the U.S. workforce. Organizations
and business leaders must effectively leverage their skills and abilities to address critical labor
shortages (Behie & Henwood, 2018; Capelli, 2015; Cave & Schuetze, 2012; Gray, 2018). As
organizations understand the influences that support ELLs, they become enabled to build equity
to help ELLs be more effective and increase their value to the organization. The study
participants’ experiences and opinions helped guide the recommendations and solutions in
Chapter Five, which organizations can utilize to provide and improve equity for ELLs.
Overview of the Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Several theories guide this research. These include stereotype threat (Steele, 2010) and
performance anxiety for ELLs (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2019), discrimination based on a
language standard ideology (Lippi-Green, 2004), the use of artificial intelligence to support
language learning, and a review of approaches to DEI including communities of practice (CoPs)
and employee resource groups (ERGs). In this study, factors affecting ELLs were placed in
context using an adapted ecological systems model, which is more fully described and shown in
Figure 1 in the next chapter (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Kasbi & Elahi Shirvan, 2017).
Development does not occur in a vacuum, and the context is critical. Bronfenbrenner
7

(1979) defined the ecology of human development as the mutual relationship between the
individual and elements of their setting, with a reciprocal and bi-directional interaction.
Vygotsky’s (1934, 2012) sociocultural learning theory (SCT) introduced a responsive
pedagogical model, including the principles of scaffolding, the zone of proximal development,
and collaborative learning. This research model aligns with positive human development
(Boswell, 2005; Lehtonen, 2017; Maley, 2020; Seligman, 2011) by identifying ELLs’
strengths and organizational systems that promote success. Promoting positive human
development in real-world settings (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) and a participatory–social justice
approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) will involve ELLs in developing appropriate solutions.
Thus, as defined by Creswell and Creswell, this study aims to move from theory to practical
solutions, creating social justice to address systemic inequalities among marginalized
populations.
Involving ELLs in creating equity will produce future leaders (Lerner & Overton,
2008) who can advocate for themselves and their families, community, and society to create
positive change. Using a participatory-social justice approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018),
this study took an inclusive, transformative mixed-methods approach by collecting quantitative
and qualitative data (Mertens, 2009). The study aims to identify interventions that will build
equity for ELLs from their unique point of view.

8

Key Terminology and Definitions
This section provides working definitions for terms frequently used in this study.
Diversity
Diversity is the presence of differences within a given setting (Bolger, n.d.). A team or
group is diverse in its relationship to each group member. A person may bring diversity to a
team, representing many different kinds of diversity (i.e., a Black LGBTQIA+ female who
speaks Spanish), but the individual is not diverse. Organizations typically recognize diversity by
race, age, religion, or gender, but language diversity is rarely addressed (Kim et al., 2019).
However, data shows that language diversity is a significant and growing element in the U.S.
workforce (Colby & Ortman, 2015; McGuinness & Ortiz, 2017; Penrod, 2019; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020). Therefore, language must also be acknowledged as a vital element of workplace
diversity. Diversity may also include sexual orientation and physical or mental abilities.
Language is an identity frequently subjected to systematic discrimination (Baugh, 2003, 2017,
2018; Bolger, n.d.; Lippi-Green, 2004).
English Language Learner
This study defines an English Language Learner (ELL) as someone for whom English is
not their first language. They may or may not have been born in the United States. An ELL may
also include individuals identified as an L2, speaker of English as a Second Language (ESL),
speaker of English as an Additional Language (EAL), or speaker with Limited English
Proficiency (LEP). In contrast, a Native English Speaker (NES) is a person who identifies
English as their first and preferred language.
ELLs are a diverse and heterogeneous group whose identity intersects language and many
other personal characteristics. Although identified as a distinct group for this study, ELLs are a
9

diverse group of multilingual professionals, as evidenced in the study’s demographic data
presented in Chapter Four.
Equity
Equity means accounting for differences in individual attributes and experiences to
achieve equal outcomes (Bensimon et al., 2016). Equity must be implemented as a pervasive
institution and system-wide principle. To be effective, it requires organizations to identify and
eliminate barriers that prevent marginalized individuals from fully participating in and
contributing to the organization (Equity in the Center, 2019). This definition acknowledges that
entities must take steps to provide opportunities for historically underserved and
underrepresented populations (Equity in the Center, 2019). It is important to note that equity is
different from equality, with equality defined as treating everyone the same and giving everyone
the same opportunities and resources, regardless of the person’s abilities.
Highly Skilled Professional
A highly skilled professional is a person in the workplace whose education and training
typically go beyond the high school level and often include workplace-specific English expertise
(WSE). Examples are medicine, technology, engineering, computer programming, and other
industries, like architecture and manufacturing, or skilled trades such as carpenters, plumbers,
and auto repair technicians.
Language Discrimination
Language discrimination is the unfair treatment of an individual based solely on
characteristics of that person’s speech, such as accent, vocabulary, and syntax. It can also involve
an individual’s ability or inability to use one language instead of another. Language
discrimination focuses on the style of speech used by an individual. Linguicism (Skutnabb-
10

Kangas, 1989), or linguistic discrimination, is culturally and socially determined due to a
preference for using one language over others–a language standard (Lippi-Green, 2004).
The Civil Rights Act is a federal law that protects individuals from discrimination based
on national origin and race. Language discrimination is a subset of national origin discrimination
defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some courts and government agencies have
said that discrimination based on language is a form of national origin discrimination because
primary language is closely related to where a person comes from (Language Discrimination,
n.d.).
Minority
Traditional views of what defines a minority or majority (White, Anglo-Saxon, or people
of European origin) are slow to catch up with reality as people unconsciously assume they know
facts based on personal experience (Sloman & Fernback, 2018). For this study, a minority or
minority group is defined as any individual or group other than non-Hispanic Whites. I
acknowledge that there may be other categories that define a minority. As shown in the 2010 and
2020 U.S. Census Bureau data, the “minority” has now become the majority in some cases. This
trend will continue.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. This first chapter provides a brief
overview of the problem of practice, building equity for English language learners in today’s
high-tech workplace, and an introduction to the literature. Theoretical concepts, including an
adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model, are essential to this study, and
key concepts and definitions are presented. Chapter Two provides a review of the current
literature that guides this study. Theories discussed include stereotype threat and performance
11

anxiety for ELLs and the importance of sociocultural and contextual learning. Demographic data
support the growing importance of ELLs in the workplace. A discussion highlights prior research
about ELLs in the workplace. In particular, organizations need to build equity that explicitly
supports the highly skilled ELL employee rather than burden the individual with the cost and
time to address perceived inadequacies. Chapter Three describes this study’s mixed-methods
conceptual framework, including factors to be explored and evaluated, the methodology for
selecting participants, the rationale for investigating one possible solution, and the data collection
and analysis approach. In Chapter Four, survey data, results, and findings from interviews are
presented. A thematic analysis of interviews, documents, and artifacts helps readers better
understand stakeholders’ experiences from their point of view. Quantitative analysis will help
readers understand how employees engage with the proposed solution. At the same time, the
qualitative data provides ELLs’ perspectives and feelings about leveraging artificial intelligence
to close a skills gap. Finally, Chapter Five includes ideas for proposed solutions based on data
analysis and the literature and an implementation and evaluation plan for moving forward with
viable solutions that build equity for ELL employees.
12

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter reviews the literature related to ELLs in the workforce. Adapting
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model, this study explores the context of workplace
elements that affect ELL workers and solutions for building equity. This examination includes
ELLs’ experiences at work, as indicated by human resource KPIs, and assesses the impact of the
problem by understanding workplace and demographic trends in the United States. Additionally,
this chapter reviews important theoretical frameworks that inform the problem of practice and
some practical solutions for building equity.
English Language Learners in the Workplace
A third of employers report labor shortages and gaps in technical skills and other
competencies in their workforce and job candidates (Lumina Foundation, 2014; Lund &
Hancock, 2021; Mallick & Sousa, 2017; McGuinness & Ortiz, 2016; McGuiness et al., 2018;
Penrod, 2019). Further, industry reports indicate a shortfall of up to 11.6 million workers aged 25
and older. Deficiencies exist in sectors as varied as hospitality, healthcare, construction,
technology, and engineering. Employers have addressed the widespread labor shortage due to an
increasingly boundaryless business landscape by looking beyond national borders (Cave &
Schuetze, 2021; Inklaar & Papakonstantinou, 2020). The nation is becoming more racially,
ethnically, and linguistically diverse. Consequently, the United States has experienced a rapid
influx of professionals for whom English is not their first language (Floyd, 2012).
As far back as 1991, the Hudson Institute predicted that the U.S. labor force would be
85% women, minorities, and immigrants (Thomas, 1991). The predictions of 30 years ago have
now arrived. In 2014, the majority of foreign-born workers primarily consisted of professionals
aged 20 to 60 (Colby & Ortman, 2015). Moreover, data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020)
13

indicated that the trend accelerated faster than predicted as globalization, technology, and
increasing mobility bring together people with different linguistic backgrounds as co-workers.
Migration created linguistic diversity in urban and rural areas (Poyhonen et al., 2018), moving
beyond merely high-tech geographic hubs. Modern-day dynamics and miscommunication at
work (Stubbe, 2017) create stressors for native and non-native speakers.
Organizations do not want to be perceived as unwelcoming or hostile (Shih, 2017), so
they advocate for diversity policies. Nevertheless, ELLs and minorities represent a
disproportionate share of KPIs. Equitable solutions are necessary to use ELLs as effective key
contributors that improve organizational performance.
Sizing Up the Problem: United States Workplace Demographics and Trends
The ELL population in the United States is significant and growing. U.S. Census Bureau
researchers Colby and Ortman (2015) projected that this group will grow by almost 100 million
people between 2014–2060. Growth slows as fertility rates decline and net international
migration decreases moderately. Despite this slower growth, Colby and Ortman anticipated that
more than half of all Americans would belong to a “minority” group by 2044. They defined a
minority as anyone other than non-Hispanic Whites. By 2060, they predicted the foreign-born
population would increase by 85%, making foreign-born residents almost 20% of the total U.S.
population. The impact of ELLs in the workplace is becoming even more complicated as
language diversity is no longer as simple as having English and Spanish speakers (Wiley, 2008).
Beyond individual organizations, skilled labor shortages present a barrier to sustainable
economic growth. The U.S. government forecasts a shortage of 1,000,000 science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workers over the next 10 years (Iammartino et al., 2016).
Education and immigration policies, as well as other factors, have exacerbated this problem. The
14

looming shortage of skilled IT workers and high replacement costs (Heisler & Bandow, 2018;
Windeler, 2016) make employee retention, recruitment, and support vital for organizations.
Work from Lund and Hancock (2021) also provides a view into equipping employees with skills
needed in the automation age.
The Effects of Language Diversity on Organizations
Many adult immigrants had successful careers before immigrating (Leong & Tang,
2016). Workplace inequities are abundant, from the selection process at job entry to
consideration for promotion and leadership opportunities. Organizations hire individuals with
greater fluency, all other factors being equal (Scassa, 1994), and the dominant group defines
fluency. In organizations, this standard de facto defines and limits the opportunities available to
ELLs unless they can speak fluent English.
The challenges experienced by non-native speakers include role clarity, medical errors,
construction-site safety, conflict, absenteeism, and turnover (Devine et al., 2012; Gumusluoglu et
al., 2013; Kalarao, 2004; Madera et al., 2014). ELL workers represent a disproportionate share of
these KPIs. Higher rates of harassment complaints, lawsuits or EEOC filings, and
communication barriers all have an undesirable impact on the organizations’ financial results.
Increasing cross-cultural collaboration and reducing conflict can foster an environment that
promotes creativity and innovation (Alper et al., 2012; Goodman, 2017), improving performance
and profitability. A linguistic penalty (Roberts, 2010) can lead to ineffectively using ELLs’ skills
and talents in the new globalized economy (Moore, 1999). Roberts also states that large complex
technology organizations produce different conditions for language socialization that may not
exist in other businesses. Individual, team, and organizational performance may be negatively
affected (Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010; Lev-Ari & Keysar, 2010).
15

In their research, Kim et al. (2019) found that non-native speakers (NNSs) exhibited
stereotype threat and anxiety, fatigue, status loss, and goal avoidance, removing themselves from
difficult (real or perceived) situations rather than appearing incompetent. Native speakers also
experienced anxiety and fatigue trying to understand and communicate with their NNS
coworkers. Native speakers avoided interactions with NNS workers to reduce the anxiety and
negative emotions that create barriers to group membership, inclusion, and belonging.
For both groups, these behaviors reinforced an antagonistic undercurrent within the
organization. Kim et al. (2019) researched 51 native and 48 non-native speakers, using in-depth
semi-structured interviews and open-ended questions about the respondents’ experiences in a
survey format. To be eligible to participate, participants had to be either (a) a native English
speaker who had experience working with international colleagues/coworkers/clients in the
Unites States or (b) a non-native English speaker who had work experience in the United States.
Wolfington (2002) stated that ESL employees without a shared schema have difficulties
understanding and responding to verbal and written communication, and context is necessary to
understand workplace communications.
Even highly skilled L2 workers with intense classroom learning or years of training
(Knight, 2016; O’Neill, 2011) face workplace challenges. Qualified professionals (Henderson &
Barker, 2018; Lutz & Paretti, 2021) can experience difficulty transitioning from the classroom to
the workplace. Imagine how a doctor or nurse might perform well on a test or excel in a
simulated practice environment but falter when required to execute their skills on the job (Elder
et al., 2012). In the United States, this is a major issue. Approximately 25% of the U.S. physician
workforce graduated from overseas medical schools (Educational Commission for Foreign
Medical Graduates, 2020).
16

L2 workers can have difficulty applying language skills in high-stakes encounters, such
as job interviews and presentations (Kerekes, 2004). In a study of Latin American MBAs,
participants described language barriers as challenging despite their strong educational
backgrounds (Kassim & Mohd Radzuan, 2008; Turchick et al., 2010). ELLs desire better
language skills and realize that verbal fluency is critical for future professional and personal
success. Practical skills can help them understand healthcare benefits or help children with
homework (Duff et al., 2002). These examples highlight the effect of language diversity in the
workplace, but it appears little has been done. More research is needed to identify organizations’
interests in promoting ELL workers’ success (Beliz et al., 2019; Duval-Couetil & Mikulecky,
201; Remington & Yang, 2020).
Supporting the personal and professional goals of L2 employees through language
learning programs improves organizational performance, but most interventions place additional
burdens on the ELL (FluentU, 2022; Mittra, 2022). Language learning programs are rarely
available within regular working hours, and few employers will pay for them. They consider it
an individual problem. Applying and improving language skills at work can be difficult and
psychologically and emotionally draining (Igoudin, 2008; Young & Faux, 2011). Beyond the
mental strain, physical manifestations of stereotype threat (Steele, 2010) are real, including high
blood pressure, sweating, gastro-intestinal distress, shaking, and stuttering. As employees work
to meet the organization’s goals and objectives, language differences create stressors and conflict
in the workplace.
Research has focused on the negative experiences of ELL employees, but some
researchers (Maley, 2020) have started applying Layard and Seligman’s positive psychology to
language learning. The application of happiness as a psychological construct and human emotion
17

to language learning has been growing. It is a pleasant alternative to the depressing state of
affairs well-documented in the research. In its simplest form, a person performs better at any task
when happy and content (Seligman, 2011). Those advocating for the learning of ELLs suggest
supporting the whole person, focusing on the presentation’s enjoyable nature and immediacy as
part of the scaffold (Krashen, 1982; MacIntyre et al., 2019; O’Bryan et al., 2019). Furthermore,
like organizations, individuals determine whether the subjective task value of an activity
outweighs the costs of engaging.
Oral Presentation Skills
The delivery of a verbal (oral) monologue is known as a presentation. Presentations
typically require someone to speak for a given time on a specific topic (Barrett & Liu 2019).
Formal oral presentations require different skills from more casual, interactive speech. Brown
(1981) observed that formal speaking is transactional and is influenced by written language, but
it also requires paralinguistic vocal features, gestures, and facial expressions to enhance content
delivery. Nation and Newton (2009) noted that formal speaking often requires instruction and
practice since it is not usually a part of daily use. Nevertheless, according to Seau et al. (2018),
there is a lack of presentation skills programs developed with a sound pedagogical approach.
The consequences for ELLs in this regard are noteworthy. Listeners evaluated ELLs’
competence based on their language skills and fluency, regardless of their actual ability
(Coupland & Bishop, 2007). NNSs who delivered the same scripted speech as native speakers
were significantly less likely to be recommended for a middle-management position (Kim et al.,
2019) than their native-speaking counterparts.
This evaluation leads to discrimination and fewer career opportunities (Huang et al.,
2013; Russo et al., 2017). In Hosoda and Stone-Romero’s (2010) experiment, 203 student
18

participants considered two employees for promotion based on previously recorded interviews.
The matched-guise technique manipulated the applicant’s accent. Results showed that applicants
with a Hispanic accent were less likely to be considered for promotion. Huang et al. also showed
that candidates with an accent were deemed less capable of using their knowledge to influence
others to achieve individual or organizational objectives. In addition to these apparent barriers to
inclusion and advancement, language diversity can elicit more subtle forms of discrimination and
profiling at work compared to other diversity attributes (Baugh, 2017; Bent & Bradlow, 2003;
Russo et al., 2017).
Language Standards and Discrimination
Developing a multicultural organization (Cox, 1991; Holvino, 2008) means valuing and
integrating diverse perspectives, identities, cultures, and styles into the organization’s work and
system. Organizations must implement institutional systems that create equity to gain the
benefits of a diverse workforce. Organizations must integrate ELL workers into the fabric of
their business rather than using linguistic differences to maintain the status quo. Language is
frequently used as a disguise to maintain systems of inequity. Equity work must move from
individual interventions to systemic organizational change and processes that create social
diversity and justice at the organizational levels.
Linguistics and Language Ideology at Work
A basic understanding of linguistics can help place language discrimination in context.
Linguistic discrimination or profiling (also called glottophobia, linguicism, and languagism) is
an unfair treatment based on language and speech characteristics, including a person’s first
language, accent, perceived vocabulary size, and syntax. Linguistic profiling is prevalent (Jared,
2021) and leads to judgments about a person’s education, race, or other characteristics.
19

Linguistic profiling occurs solely based on auditory cues, eliminating race, age, and other
manifestations historically associated with discrimination (Baugh, 2003). Baugh’s work centered
on the social stratification of English and uncovered discriminatory practices toward individuals
and groups who do not speak the dominant linguistic norms of their communities. Based on his
experience while looking for an apartment in Palo Alto, California, Baugh’s groundbreaking
research proved that perceptions shifted based on what a person heard. Decisions about a
person’s competencies, education, race, ethnicity, and sex are made, sometimes in as little as one
second. Visual cues are not the only determinant of discrimination. Baugh’s four experiments
focused on more than 400 Stanford students between 2002–2005 and validated linguistic
profiling. The methodology used one word in the fourth and final experiment – “Hello.” One
word was uttered in less than one second, eliminating external factors and illustrating how little
speech is needed to identify dialect.
More than 70% of listeners identified race, ethnicity, and sex based on one word.
Opinions formed quickly, and listeners were sensitive to cues well below the level of
consciousness. Although Baugh’s research team started with the expectation that there would be
no correlation between language features and discrimination, their research proved four
statistically significant conclusions:
1. Dialect-based discrimination takes place.
2. Ethnic group affiliation is recoverable from speech.
3. Very little speech is needed to discern between dialects.
4. Some phonetic and dialect markers are discernible from a minimal amount of speech.
Research shows that children and young adults (who claim to be socially conscious) are
more likely to prefer friends who talk like them and can override preferences for friends of the
20

same race (Berry, 2021; Paquette-Smith et al., 2019). Moreover, this dynamic does not change in
the workplace. Teboul and Youn (2019) point out that 80% of native speakers encountered
foreign languages at work, using a critical incident methodology (n = 157) to collect personal
narratives to learn more about the types of encounters foreign language minorities experience in
both task and social situations. They used Giles’ communication accommodation theory (CAT)
and social identity theory to understand how L2 workers derive a sense of attachment and
belonging. Though some organizations found foreign-language skills helpful if they needed
people to speak with customers, most organizations wanted policies that limited the use of non-
standard languages at work.
Language standardization attempts to stop language change, but the critical question is
how the standard can be defined. According to Lippi-Green (2012), (a) all spoken languages are
equal in their ability to communicate a full range of ideas, and (b) all spoken languages change
over time, including Standard American English (SAE). Every year, new words are added to
SAE. Gender-neutral words are more common than in the past. Latino/Latina is now Latinx,
some newspapers replace Mr. or Mrs. with Mx. (Levin, 2019), and singular and plural pronouns
become blurred as “they” replace him/his and her/hers. These are recent examples, but the issue
is not new, nor is the backlash. The dominant privileged group actively suppresses and
discourages spoken language variation.
For ELLs, listeners evaluated the speaker’s linguistic competence and capabilities more
broadly (Hosoda & Stone-Romero, 2010; Huang et al., 2013). Employers sometimes perceive
workers with limited fluency as less intelligent. This unfair characterization often creates
frustration, stress, decreased motivation, and discontent (Madera et al., 2014).
21

It is not easy and usually takes years for a learner to reach near native-like fluency
(Aslan, 2017; Kline, 2006). A high degree of education does not protect one from discrimination
based on an accent, although the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII provides some relief via Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints. Title VII protects employees from
discrimination based on skin color, ethnicity, gender, or age, and by logical extension, the EEOC
protects employees based on their language traits. A 2013 report by the EEOC cited more than
10,600 complaints of employment discrimination based on national origin, including perceived
problems with language ability and accent. The EEOC maintains that organizations can only
require an employee to speak fluent English if it is necessary to perform the job effectively
(Mujtaba et al., 2011). EEOC policy also indicates that the degree of fluency can vary based on
the job, so people are judged based on form rather than content.
Communication accommodation theory (CAT), known initially as speech
accommodation theory, was introduced by Giles in 1971 (Dragojevice et al., 2014), providing a
theoretical framework to understand accommodation (or convergence). Language subordination
targets only language variations emblematic of race, ethnicity, homeland, or other social
allegiances. Convergence is a process whereby parties adjust communication behaviors to
diminish or enhance social and communicative differences (Giles, 2016).
Accommodation serves two primary cognitive functions. First, it facilitates coherent
interaction, and second, it manages the social distance between individuals and other group
members (Giles & Soliz, 2014; Vine, 2009) based on language, accent, and fluency. As a speaker
enters an interaction, they evaluate the other person and assess their intentions for the current and
future engagements (Hazel, 2018). Convergence can be upward or downward, but it is an
22

essential component of social power. Immigrants adapting to their host country or a patient
trying to mimic a doctor’s more formal medical language are examples of convergence.
Convergence is a way of showing attraction and respect or seeking another person’s
approval. Individuals may also converge to highlight common social identities, convey empathy
and support, and build bonds with others (Soliz & Lin, 2014). However, those in socially
subordinate roles typically converge more than individuals in socially dominant positions.
Workplace discrimination is seen in language subordination or linguistic stereotyping, targeting
language variations emblematic of race, ethnicity, homeland, or other social allegiances. Native
English speakers (NESs) tend to place the burden of communication on the L2 speaker (Lippi-
Green, 2012).
There is no denying that the matter is complicated. Kulkarni (2014) conducted qualitative
interviews with 38 employees working in India. All but two indicated that their organizational
language was English. All but two, who were native English speakers, cited Hindi, Kannada, or
another language as their first language. Kulkarni’s interviews explored the effect of
organizational language on communication and confirmed that language differences devalued
workers as individuals and created a power source for the organization to include or exclude
individuals.
The Economics of Language Learning at Work
For organizations, globalization, technology, and increasing mobility bring together
people with different linguistic backgrounds. Competing in the global economy, U.S. employers
face increased needs for skilled labor, especially in the domains of engineering and technology
(Carnevale et al., 2018; King & Juniper, 2017; Lutz & Paretti, 2021; Mallick & Sousa, 2017).
However, English monolingualism dominates language policies and procedures in the United
23

States (Wiley, 2008), and language is typically the forgotten factor in managing large
multinational organizations (Marschan et al., 1997; McFeely & Wigert, 2019; McGuiness &
Ortiz, 2016, Penrod, 2019; Shahabadi & Hosseinidoust, 2018).
Business leaders view education as a national policy issue (Poyhonen et al., 2018), and
institutionalized resistance to organizational change includes denial, inaction, silence, and
repression, all representing attempts to dismantle change initiatives (Agocs, 1997; Morrison &
Milliken, 2000). McGee and Johnson (2015) offered a different lens. Rather than an educational
issue, they outline organizational behavior management (OBM)—the science of addressing
people’s work performance—and examine human performance technology (HPT) as a
systematic approach to improving productivity and competence to create a high-performing
organization.
Beyond individual organizations, Grin et al. (2010) developed a new economic model,
which provided a quantitative estimation of production that includes language. They showed that
foreign language skills could significantly contribute to a country’s GDP (gross domestic
product). These measures are essential since demographic data indicates a rapid shift in the
composition of the population and organizations.
Minority groups are becoming the numerical and economic majority. However,
colorblindness by the majority contributes to feelings of exclusion for various organizational
members (Stevens et al., 2008). Building equity with an all-inclusive approach is essential to
generating positive organizational change. Building social capital and positive relationships
benefit all organizational members. Creating relationships and connections between dissimilar
members also increases learning, resilience, clarity, and confidence. In turn, increasing social
24

and functional inclusion transforms the competencies and capabilities of all team members
(Bradshaw & Fredette, 2012).
Learning and development (L&D) professionals must take a disciplined approach to
ensure successful equity interventions. L&D is vital in addressing the skills gap and building
equity for marginalized populations that are a significant and growing portion of the workforce.
Most interventions have focused on individual activities rather than organizational systems, and
it is difficult to convince business executives of a return on investment (Duval-Couetil &
Mikulecky, 2011). Executives want concrete, substantial payoffs from employee learning and
talent development initiatives (Phillips & Phillips, 2017). To appeal to executives, L&D
practitioners should focus on improving the efficiency of processes, increasing customer
satisfaction, and reducing system downtime, grievances, absenteeism, and safety errors.
Quantifying the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) or return on investment (ROI) on these initiatives is
imperative because it helps executives decide between competing demands for resources (Hays-
Thomas, 2016).
Kotter (1995) suggested that many change efforts fail because they are not anchored in
the corporate culture and lack urgency or emphasize short-term wins. While Kotter articulated
these ideas more than 20 years ago, the definition of an adaptive organizational culture (Costanza
et al., 2016; Schneider et al., 1996) and its impact on creating a climate for long-term survival
and profitability are not well documented. Recent work by Lencioni (2002), Zak (2017), and
Miller (2018) have emphasized the importance of trust as a necessary element to driving
organizational change and exceptional performance. Buckingham and Coffman (1999)
demonstrated that high engagement leads to high performance. Rath and Conchie (2008) noted
25

that leaders with high employee engagement are rated high in trust, compassion, stability, and
hope.
Several factors make the business case for diversity (Charlton & Kostandini, 2021; Cox,
1991; Gray, 2018; Remington & Yang, 2020), including improved talent acquisition and
increased creativity, innovation, and flexibility. Organizations are competing against other
businesses (and countries) for skilled labor (Beliz et al., 2019; Cave & Schuetze, 2021; Inklaar &
Papakonstantinou, 2020, Lund & Hancock, 2021; Shahabadi & Hosseinidoust, 2018). More
diverse organizations can adapt more quickly to external conditions like competition or changes
in the economy, labor market, and new laws or regulations. However, these improvements can
seem distant for businesses pressured to deliver short-term results to shareholders.
Lippi-Green and others demonstrated how institutionalized policy and practice have
severe consequences, but the value of diversity initiatives rarely compels an organization to act.
Perhaps a simple example can help. Gallup (McFeely & Wigert, 2019) conservatively estimates
that turnover costs are 1.5 to 2 times the employee’s salary. Therefore, in a 200-person
technology organization with a 10% annual turnover and an average salary of $150,000, turnover
and replacement costs are $4.5 to $6 million per year. Reducing turnover by 20%, thereby
retaining four people, increases the bottom line by $900,000 to $1.2 million per year. Who would
not want this kind of cost savings? Moreover, this calculation does not include the potential brain
drain (Shahabadi & Hosseinidoust, 2018) created by losing highly skilled employees.
Multiple approaches and problem-solving tools for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)
have been used in corporate America as far back as Edison. Companies typically evaluate
performance based on profitability and human resource metrics like employee job satisfaction,
supervisory satisfaction, employee engagement, and turnover. Aside from standard business
26

metrics, organizations could use the Equity Scorecard. Modeled on the Business Scorecard
(Kaplan & Norton, 1992), the Equity Scorecard provides leaders with evidence-based awareness
to help them discern opportunities for change (Harris & Bensimon, 2007). The Equity Scorecard
framed on race could be adapted to evaluate language-based programs. Design thinking, a
human-centered process for innovation, can also be applied to assess opportunities for improving
equity, starting with empathy toward the target population’s needs (Mickahail, 2018; Zhang,
2017).
Building Equity for English Language Learners
Equity and equality are not the same. Equity means accounting for individual attributes
and different experiences to create support systems that remove organizational barriers.
(Bensimon et al., 2016). Equity implemented as a pervasive institution-wide principle is the only
way to create systemic change effectively. Pelled et al. (1999) studied the impact of demographic
dissimilarity on workplace inclusion. Their study included data from 345 individuals in eight
work units. Race and gender were negatively associated with inclusion, as indicated by decision-
making influence, access to sensitive information, and job security. Pursuing equity means
developing organizational support systems that address the needs of historically underserved and
underrepresented populations.
In conversation with a Fortune 50 human resources executive, they told me no one is
losing sleep over ELLs’ challenges in the workforce. From the company’s perspective, they offer
presentation skills training, and employees don’t use the resources already available. Equality
informs the executive’s perspective, not acknowledging that employees start at different places.
Recall that equality is defined as treating everyone the same and giving everyone the same
opportunities regardless of their individual attributes.
27

Adult learning principles (Knowles et al., 2020) are at the forefront of possible options to
create equity that were considered for the study’s ELLs. Principles include making learning
relevant, timely, and flexible to the needs of each person. Learning programs must meet ELL
workers where they are, and flexibility is a crucial tenet of adult learning theory and successful
diversity programs (Scott-Pruitt et al., 2018).
Workplace Solutions That Support English Language Learners
While organizations have recognized diversity in terms of race, age, religion, and gender,
Kim et al. (2019) noted that language diversity goes unnoticed. Bonfiglio (2008) goes as far as
asserting that language is a metonym for race. If, suppose that we agree with this premise that
race and language are synonymous. In that case, it can be argued that organizations should look
to the principles of successful diversity programs to help build equitable solutions. Some
diversity training programs have attempted but failed to regulate and control bias (Dobbin &
Kalev, 2016). Therefore, they are not considered appropriate interventions.
Many language learning interventions burden the individual, treating a lack of English
fluency as a personal deficit (Hunter & Cooke, 2014). These interventions are not appropriate,
nor do they solve the business problem of retaining highly qualified professionals. Businesses
must create culturally responsive programs that meet the learners’ needs (Ananyeva, 2013;
Housel, 2019). In particular, communities of practice (COP) and employee resource groups
(ERG) have shown promise in addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion. In addition to COPs
and ERGs, technology organizations are already familiar with artificial intelligence (AI),
gamification, and mobile experiences (Golonka et al., 2014), so they are considered possible
solutions for building equity.
28

Communities of Practice (COP)
There are many ways to deliver language learning to adults, but research has consistently
shown that adult learning must be relevant and related to the work environment (Ewert, 2014;
Knowles et al., 2020). Using adult learning principles improves proficiency, defined as the
ability to apply knowledge within a particular domain (Brooks, 2009). As an early researcher in
ESL learning programs, Guth (1993) also noted that learners appreciate new, interesting,
engaging, and challenging but achievable opportunities.
A COP supports situated learning and individual development by increasing a person’s
“legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger, 2013, p. 56). Members share information
and experiences to master new knowledge and skills, and the members actively participate in
creating learning that meets their goals and needs (Kessler, 2013; Lansangan-Sabangan, 2019).
More experienced individuals typically serve as coaches and mentors, providing feedback to
members while giving participants more control over their experience. Lave and Wegner also
note that COPs foster changes in social structures that empower participants and build their
social capital.
Chae et al. (2019) collected data from 150 employee–supervisor pairs and found that
knowledge sharing increases when coworker support is high. Social surroundings enhanced a
sense of duty within the group, prioritizing others’ needs and those of the group. Atkinson (2014)
suggested that providing socially oriented learning for ELL employees is preferable to a
traditional classroom focus on literacy.
COPs are typically organized around a subject of interest. They are as varied as the
learners themselves, and topics might focus on technical skills (e.g., Azure, Python, SQL),
managerial and leadership skills (e.g., change management, giving and receiving feedback), or a
29

particular work problem like presentation skills. Contextual language learning places ELLs in
real-world settings (Grognet, 1997; Lehtonen, 2017); thus, COPs enhance a sense of belonging
and provide an opportunity for self-directed, autonomous learning in ways a traditional
classroom does not. COPs (and ERGs) reduce anxiety and stress when participants are engaged
in collaborative learning (Kessler, 2013).
COPs address many components of learning motivation and concerns (Kormos & Csizer,
2014). Finn and Gheriani (2019) recognized that COPs are popular with workers because the
opportunity cost is low as they occur during regular working hours. They create a safe space with
little risk of embarrassment. The first goal of ELLs is an opportunity to advance economically,
but their life situations often hinder them (Finn, 2011; Hayes, 1989). COPs mitigate these
barriers to learning because they occur during regular working hours and do not create a conflict
with family or social obligations.
Employee Resource Groups (ERGs)
An ERG is a social identity affinity group based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual
orientation that operates using volunteers within an organizational setting (Green, 2018). ERGs
have been around since the 1960s when Black workers at Xerox organized an ERG to discuss
race-based tension (Hastwell, 2020). Activities typically include service projects, networking,
ethnic celebrations, mentoring, speaking events, and coffee chats. Most ERGs meet monthly,
providing opportunities for coworkers and leaders to gather on an informal basis. Some examples
of these affiliations are young professionals, women, Blacks, LGBTQIA+, Hispanics, and Pan-
Asians.
ERGs offer ELL employees a safe place to practice social skills and create a sense of
community. Sometimes, ERGs provide formal learning opportunities to members, but that is not
30

the norm. They provide a vehicle that supports “engagement and contact,” ideas that have proven
successful (Brooks, 2009; Grognet, 1997). They connect marginalized or alienated workers and
are credited with improving working conditions for these groups through a common interest.
ERGs identify and develop leaders who may be overlooked by unconscious bias and may bring
issues to the surface that individuals do not feel comfortable raising on their own (Hastell, 2020).
ERGs create informal channels for peer-to-peer engagement and help create high-trust
relationships that will help the company improve performance. They have been proven
successful in providing a vehicle that informally supports knowledge sharing, engagement, and
contact (Brooks, 2009; Grognet, 1997) by meeting people where they are (Knowles et al., 2020;
Scott-Pruitt et al., 2018). While ERGs may offer ELLs a safe place to practice skills, there is no
evidence that enhancing language skills has been an intentional focus of an ERG.
Corporate Sponsored Training
Despite the direct and indirect benefits of improving language skills for L2 workers,
according to the U.S. Department of Labor (2004), only 2.2% of employers offered this type of
training. Rosheim’s (2002) Training Magazine survey ranked ESL 34th out of 34 training types
most frequently provided by employers. More recent training surveys (ATD, 2018–2020) do not
even include language skills as a subject area. Addressing workplace barriers has fallen primarily
on the individual rather than the organization, where long-standing inequalities continue (Block
& Noumair, 2015; Wilson, 2005).
Technology and Language Learning
For language learning to be relevant and practical, it must move beyond the classroom.
Sociocultural trends are moving toward more complexity, the “diversification of diversity”
(Vertovec, 2007, p. 1025). Technological trends toward mobile learning and Bring Your Own
31

Device (BYOD) place linguistic resources at the fingertips of ELLs’ personal and professional
lives. Learning that creates a digital scaffolding (Kukulaska-Hulme & Pegrum, 2018) allows
ELLs to use their language skills in the local environment and provides them with linguistic and
other skills needed for future endeavors. The development of online learning from computer-
assisted language learning (CALL) in the early 1990s and mobile-assisted language learning
(MALL) in the present day puts the power of real-time learning and support close to the needs of
ELLs in the workplace.
Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in Skills Development
CALL reduces learner anxiety because it offers an independent, non-judgmental learning
environment (Kongrith & Maddux, 2005), and learners can engage at their convenience.
Employers have shown an appreciation for CALL because it can provide a consistent, repeatable,
and scalable approach without a significant investment. Interestingly, compared to ESL classes,
tutors, or coaches, studies show that L2 professionals prefer technology over traditional training
methods (Golanka et al., 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2009) because feedback is timely
and perceived as unbiased.
In an ecological systems model, CALL (Blin, 2006) supports the changing and dynamic
nature of development over time; it can adapt to emergent, non-linear, and apparently random
events. CALL is responsive to the learner through features that objectively offer educational,
technological, social, and language affordances and can follow patterns and rules that may not be
readily observable. This approach also helps connect the psychological and environmental
processes in learning and development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Social-interactive learning in an
ecological framework is also supported by CALL (VanLier, 2000). When properly designed,
CALL operates on different scales that can also be assigned to Vygotsky’s (1978) temporal
32

domains, as needs may change over time as a learner progresses. Blin’s review of a flourishing
CALL ecosystem substantiates the validity of CALL as a possible approach to building equity.
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Training helps organizations prepare employees for more responsibility, but it is often
standardized (equal, not equitable), thus diminishing an employee’s learning. AI as a training
tool can benefit L2 learners (Refat et al., 2020) providing timely, responsive, and systematic
feedback. Furthermore, AI improves learning efficiencies and provides objective feedback and
personalization, identified as a top trend in a sentiment survey by the Learning and Performance
Institute (Taylor, 2022).
Broadly defined, AI is a human-to-computer interaction that mimics human-to-human
interaction (Dodigovic, 2005). AI enables learning curriculums that are not one-size-fits-all or
pre-determined and do not treat students’ backgrounds as a commodity (Nieto, 2003). However,
technology interventions are not without issues, particularly concerning the ethical use of AI.
General societal concerns about AI are pervasive (Meacham, 2021), but it can provide a platform
that supports culturally responsive education (CRE) that is adaptive, rigorous, and inclusive
(Stembridge, 2019). Aside from the cognitive pursuits facilitated by AI, acknowledging learners’
emotions is vital (Immordino-Yang & Gotliev, 2017). An emotional connection impacts
learning, memory, decision-making, and creativity in social and non-social settings.
First developed to handle routine, dangerous, or tedious skills, AI is a powerful tool for
personalizing the learning experience (Meacham, 2021). AI can enhance talent development by
identifying learning opportunities and adapting lesson curriculum plans to close skills. As an
intelligent tutor (Dodigovic, 2005), AI focuses an individual on critical tasks necessary for
language fluency. It supports learners’ focus and demonstrates the target behavior(s). As
33

proposed by Vygotsky (1934, 2012), “scaffolding” in the zone of proximal development (ZPD)
reduces the learner’s frustration.
An AI platform excels in providing real-time formative feedback (Shute, 2008) and can
create a safe space for learners to receive feedback with confidence and curiosity. AI training is
presumed to lack bias (Analytics Insights, 2020), and objective feedback can eliminate or
diminish triggers that threaten identity, truth, or relationships. Feedback-seeking behavior
(Blanchard & Johnson, 1982; Heen & Stone, 2014) leads to higher job satisfaction, greater
creativity, faster adaptation, and lower turnover.
AI as a training approach can benefit employers and employees for corporate learning
and development efforts (Dodigovic, 2005) as it is scalable, enhances usage tracking and insights
into learner persistence, boosts completion rates, and increases accessibility and data in
measuring training effectiveness. In a survey of 236 medical students, 83% did not feel that AI
would replace human radiologists. More than two-thirds felt AI would be helpful in their medical
education and support patients’ diagnoses. Algorithmic transparency can address bias concerns
(Meacham, 2021), but the ultimate test should be end-users.
Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL)
MALL processes support skill building and an individual’s developing identity. As with
CALL, MALL enhances prior knowledge. Personal devices can be conceived as an extension of
the self (Johnson et al., 2015). Moreover, a report from the U.S. Department of Education (2009)
that analyzed over 1,000 empirical studies found that online learners performed better than
people receiving face-to-face instruction. A meta-analysis of 51 study effects, with 44 drawn
from older learners, found that online learning had a statistically significant positive impact on
professionals (p < .05).
34

Beyond basic proficiency in grammar and vocabulary, ELLs must understand the subtle
semantics of English (O’Brien, 2006). Two factors increased online language learning
effectiveness: first, the availability of additional learning content (note: the significant positive
effect for adults did not bear similar results for K–12 students), and second, a way for
participants to interact, respond, record, and share their learning. The latter functionality in
learning is known as gamification, where badges, competing with others, keeping track of a
leader scoreboard, and other activities make learning fun (Kim et al., 2018). Learning that aligns
with ELLs’ life experiences is more efficacious (Bloomaert & Backus, 2013). These are all
elements that increase learner engagement, learning, and motivation.
Organizational Culture and Change Management
A deep dive into organizational culture that examines its shared values and beliefs is
beyond the scope of this study. However, there is no doubt that culture significantly affects how
organizations should develop change-management strategies to build equity (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). This study informs a perspective that challenges the status quo. When
organizations consider this study’s recommendations for building equity, they must consider the
cultural factors that will guide, help, or hinder them (Schein & Schein, 2017). Processes and
interventions to enhance equity must be systemic.
Organizational culture is a critical resource as organizations adapt to a dynamic
environment to survive in the long term (Costanza et al., 2016). Organizational change can only
take root and produce its intended results when leaders focus on the organizational climate. This
includes the policies, practices, and incentives that drive the culture (Schneider et al., 1996).
Strategies and implementation tactics will differ somewhat between organizations depending on
the proposed change and the people who are impacted relative to the current organizational state.
35

Within the organizational context, consideration must also be given to accommodate the specific
circumstances of ELL stakeholders.
There are different ways of defining and characterizing organizational culture, but it is
crucial to recognize the role of culture in business performance (Alas & Vadi, 2006). Research
by Mohd Adnan and Valliappan (2019) clearly illustrates the link between business performance
and organizational culture. Organizational culture is an asset that can influence a company’s
ability to achieve its goals. Mohd Adnan and Valliappan also believe a strong organizational
culture can reduce uncertainty and create a sense of order, continuity, shared identity,
commitment, and a vision for the future around which everyone can rally. Organizations may
resist change because of inertia, sunk costs, scarce resources, and threats to the power base of the
old dominant coalition (Tichy, 1982). Thus, significant effort is required to change values and
beliefs, overcome conformance to the norms, and successfully challenge an organization’s
inability to perceive and consider alternatives. However, if a culture does not change, it will
ultimately be detrimental to continued success.
Although organizational culture is a complex concept, it is fundamentally linked to
employees. It makes organizations unique and attracts certain people to a particular organization
(Keyton, 2011). The culture underpins how people interact with one another and the shared
values and beliefs they uphold (Schein & Schein, 2017). For many employees, their immediate
supervisor affects their perception of organizational culture. For instance, Buckingham and
Coffman (1999) illustrated that high engagement leads to high performance, and leaders can
affect high engagement for better or worse.
Without question, the people in the organization define organizational culture; the culture
changes as the people change. In large organizations, this can also mean that there are different
36

cultures, not one monolithic culture that permeates the entire organization equally. The power of
culture comes from shared assumptions that are mutually reinforced (Schein & Schein, 2017).
Nevertheless, it can be difficult for members of an organization to articulate the characteristics
that help them feel whether or not they belong and fit in.
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model as a Conceptual Framework
This study seeks the perspectives and ideas of ELLs to guide organizations in building
equity for highly skilled L2 technical professionals. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model
was adapted to create the study’s conceptual framework. The framework provides a structure to
align a researcher’s understanding of the problem of practice and the beliefs that may influence
the research design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) for this study. A sound conceptual framework is
vital as it allows a researcher to describe a phenomenon and stakeholders’ experiences based on
existing theory and research. Maxwell et al. (2013) moved from theory to application by
describing several uses of the contextual framework, including justifying the study, assessing and
refining research goals, selecting appropriate research methods, and interpreting findings.
This study is grounded in Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model to
understand the experience of ELLs in the technology workplace of Fortune 500 companies.
Bronfenbrenner’s groundbreaking model was unorthodox when it was proposed that a person
develops in the context of their environment. The model emphasized “what is perceived, desired,
feared, thought about, or acquired” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 9) and not more traditional
psychological processes such as perceptions or motivation. We know that personal growth does
not occur in a vacuum, and context matters. Figure 1 shows the contextual factors that define
interactions between the person and their environment, shaping how a person perceives and deals
with people and their surroundings.

Figure 1
An Ecological Systems Model for English Language Learners in the Workplace

38
38

Note. Adapted from The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design, Urie
Bronfenbrenner. Harvard University Press (1979).

Figure 1 visually represents the relationship between the ELL and the workplace
environment. As Bronfenbrenner (1979) described the teacher, classmates, and student’s
classroom, this study places the ELL employee at the system's core. For this study, the
microsystem examines the ELLs’ relationships and activities, focused on ELLs’ supervisors. The
mesosystem includes ELLs’ co-workers and team members in their department. The mesosystem
includes other situations beyond the immediate team, including employee resource groups
(ERGs) and communities of practice (COPs).
The LMS and corporate and learning opportunities provided by the employer are placed
in the exosystem, moving further away from the individual. Although the study focused on the
workplace, the survey did conduct a cursory inquiry into the home environment. Each model
layer – the microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem – creates the macrosystem, representing
the workplace culture. Finally, the chronosystem (time) is relatively finite during the study
period. However, over time, the changing nature of external influences such as global
competition, U.S. policies supporting immigration, COVID-19, and rising tensions related to
social justice issues have impacted ELLs and will continue to do so.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) model informs the study’s evaluation of possible solutions and
recommendations (see Chapter Five) in the organizational context. Vygotsky’s (1934, 2012)
sociocultural learning theory (SCT) introduced a responsive pedagogical model, including the
principles of scaffolding, the zone of proximal development (ZPD), and collaborative learning.
These elements determine how much information processing can occur and how learning is
39

assessed. SCT also stresses the importance of learning in a context that considers students’
backgrounds and experiences (Holzman, 2018; Lave & Wegner, 2013), where activity supports
the development of the whole person, not just learning. Cunningham Florez (1998) noted that
leveraging social identity and a person’s culture helps them understand themselves relative to
others and their environment (Ullman, 1997), making it easier for ELLs to acquire language.
Three studies use Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) model to explore the perspective and
experience of the ELL. These include occupational stress (Salazar & Beaton, 2000; Steele, 2010)
and foreign language speaking anxiety (Kasbi & Shirvan, 2017). Salazar and Beaton’s research
supported the idea that stress manifests itself in many ways that are often hard to define and
quantify. Difficulty measuring stress creates an environment where managers may ignore or
underreport problems. Unfortunately, ignoring the issue can lead to more severe consequences,
including workplace violence, sick days, occupational injuries, and suicide.
Similar to Bronfenbrenner’s students, this study seeks to identify opportunities for ELL
success. The ecological systems model is relevant and appropriate for providing organizations
with information about ELL perspectives on developing equity programs. Conceptual
approaches considered for this study included Burke-Litwin (1992) and Clark and Estes (2008),
but Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems model prevailed.
Conclusion
The workplace has not embraced language diversity, and equity rarely focuses on ELLs.
Hiring and retaining highly skilled professionals is becoming increasingly critical to
organizational success and U.S. economic growth. Given ELLs' growing representation in the
population and their importance in this context, organizations that embrace language diversity
and harness the power of all employees will outperform those who do not.
40

Most L2 research focuses on school-aged children, college students, and working
professionals with LEP. There is no evidence that multilingualism is considered a positive factor
in hiring, except on a limited basis where language skills are a specific job requirement. This
study makes a meaningful contribution to the literature and provides recommendations for
workplace equity programs for highly skilled professionals, designed for and from the ELLs’
perspective.

41

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter presents the design and methodology of the study. Data were identified,
collected, and analyzed to better understand the factors supporting and hindering equity for ELLs
in the workforce of Fortune 500 companies. As previously described, language diversity affects
organizational performance, and decades of U.S. census data indicate that this dynamic is
growing faster than initially predicted. This chapter defines the proposed research setting,
including the participant criteria, the sampling process, data collection procedures, data analysis,
and instrumentation for this mixed-methods study. The chapter also addresses validity and
reliability, trustworthiness and credibility, ethics, limitations, and delimitations pertinent to this
study.
Research Questions
With an understanding of the relevant literature and prior research, in the context of an
adapted ecological systems model, two research questions guide this study:
1. How do English language learner technology workers perceive their workplace
experience in terms of diversity, equity, and inclusion in Fortune 500 companies?
2. In the context of their workplace experience, what suggestions do English Language
Learners have for employers to create equitable solutions that support ELLs and
eliminate barriers to success in the workplace?
Overview of Design
This study employed a mixed-methods approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) to gather
quantitative and qualitative data to provide a richer, fuller picture of ELLs’ workplace
experiences and possible ideas for creating equity. A mixed-methods approach provides utility
(Olivier, 2017) as a diagnostic approach to understanding an organization’s performance.
42

Furthermore, using qualitative and quantitative methods aids in eliminating bias and identifying
the root cause of the problem. Table 1 shows the research questions and their relationship to the
quantitative and qualitative data.
The first step was to gather quantitative data via an online Qualtrics survey designed by
the researcher that included 50 closed-ended questions. Participants completed the survey
anonymously and at their convenience. The survey provided uniform questioning of a larger
group and reduced the risk of bias or inconsistencies that may be introduced during an interview
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The survey data were analyzed using statistical procedures in
Qualtrics to identify potential connections between the ELLs and various elements in their
workplace ecosystem.
After the survey data analysis, seven 60-minute semi-structured interviews were
conducted. The interview consisted of eight questions designed to solicit qualitative observations
from ELLs that helped explain and inform the quantitative findings. The interviews provided
details and suggestions from ELLs regarding their workplace experience, barriers to success, and
opportunities to improve workplace equity. Overall, interviews informed a more thorough
understanding of the experiences of the ELLs, and their stories will also help humanize the
study’s recommended solutions for building workplace equity.
Triangulating data from the surveys and interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) helped
determine possible associations between ELLs’ workplace experiences and their suggestions for
equity. Specifically, their workplace experience was framed through the lens of diversity, equity,
and inclusion; job satisfaction; satisfaction with the supervisor; and the employee net promotor
score (e-NPS), a measure of engagement with the organization.

43

Table 1
Research Questions (RQ) and Study Data Sources
Research questions Method 1
participant
survey
Method 2
participant
interviews
RQ1: How do English language learner technology
workers perceive their workplace experience related
to diversity, equity, and inclusion in Fortune 500
companies?
X X
RQ2: In the context of their workplace experience,
what suggestions do English language learners have
for employers to create equitable solutions to support
ELLs and eliminate barriers to success in the
workplace?

X

Participating Stakeholders
The study focused on ELLs’ workplace experience with an emphasis on identifying
equity solutions that would support their success. The participants are drawn from various fields,
including consulting, healthcare, defense, and pharmaceuticals, among others. As mentioned
previously, the participants worked in the IT field in highly skilled roles, such as analysts and
programmers in Fortune 500 companies. The data collection took place in January and February
2022.
As more fully described in Chapter Four, 23 study participants represented 16 spoken
languages and seven countries of origin. Roughly one-third were U.S.-born but did not
acknowledge English as their first language. The vast majority (over 80%) were bilingual, while
17% were multilingual.
44

Criteria and Rationale
The primary stakeholders and the overall objectives of the study determined the selection
criterion. Defining participant characteristics ensured that the research criteria were met
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The study used specific selection criteria to minimize the
possibility of other extenuating factors that might place additional stress on ELLs during the
study, such as having resided in the United States for at least 24 months. As the study aimed to
understand ELLs’ experiences, participants answered four pre-screening survey questions
(Appendix B, Q2) to ensure study participants met the following selection criteria:
• Are you employed by a Fortune 500 company in a technology role?
• Were you born in the United States?
• Is English your first or preferred language?
• Do you work as an individual contributor, team leader, or manager?
Participants were also not permitted to hold senior leadership roles, such as a director or vice
president. The rationale for this is that, presumably, senior executives have already overcome
hurdles to career advancement. The study aimed to understand what ELLs need to support their
success and career advancement within the present-day work environment and social dynamics.
The Researcher
I am empathetic to the experiences of ELLs, but it should be clear that my frustrations
with effectively communicating are in no way comparable to what they experience. Although I
am a native English speaker, I sometimes feel inadequate when I fail to express myself well or
articulate a point clearly and concisely. As an introvert, I can become frustrated and stressed
when trying to communicate ideas in a well-formed manner if I do not have sufficient time to
compose my thoughts. Like ELLs, I have also been told I have an accent (originating in the
45

Finger Lakes region of upstate New York) or talk too fast. However, the truth is that everyone
has an accent.
By most measures, I have led a life of privilege (Morgan, 2018), including an educational
journey that has included three of the best universities in the world. Strong communication skills
have contributed to my success. While I have frequently heard “you are too young” or “we need
a man in this role,” language skills have not adversely impacted my career. Any shortcomings in
my communication skills are of my own making (Lippi, 2012). In 1987, moving from White,
rural, middle-class America to New York City, my first job immersed me in the male-dominated
high-tech industry. That environment introduced me to many foreign-born professionals, and so
began a more than 30-year journey with an appreciation for ELL professionals and their work
experience. I am fortunate to enjoy many meaningful relationships with ELLs professionally and
personally. ELLs are my colleagues and friends who are important to me. I see intelligent, well-
educated ELL professionals delivering high-impact work, yet they are overlooked for leadership
roles. I hope that my research can serve as a guide for organizations that want to build and
improve equity for ELLs and support the advancement of their careers.
Paradigm of Inquiry
Every researcher brings a philosophy, beliefs, and assumptions about knowledge
development to their scholarly endeavors (Saunders et al., 2019). Many factors shape this
viewpoint, but they include: (a) ontological assumptions about the realities encountered during
research, (b) epistemological assumptions about human knowledge, and (c) axiological
assumptions regarding the influence of one’s values on the research process.
My worldview most closely aligns with the ideas of interpretivism. Saunders et al. (2019)
define interpretivism as a point of view that emphasizes, humans create meaning. Decisions and
46

rules are interpreted and applied in the context of the situation, not a set of universal laws (like a
physical phenomenon) that apply to everyone. Different cultural backgrounds, circumstances,
and times create multiple realities. My interpretivist worldview aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979, 2005) and Vygotsky’s (1934, 2012) conceptual models for individual development. They
propose that the elements around the person must be placed in context to create a supportive and
nurturing environment.
The interpretivist approach also supports and guides my belief that new, richer
understandings of ELLs’ workplace experiences are necessary to build equity. The research will
consider these experiences and attempt to understand how different backgrounds, circumstances,
and languages may affect their workplace reality. It is essential to recognize that individuals can
view the same experience differently (Dudovskiy, 2018). An interpretivist viewpoint can also
remind the researcher that she brings bias to the study and must take steps to minimize this bias.
The researcher’s positionality has created a different experience from her ELL
colleagues. The researcher comes to this study with an open mind and a genuine interest in
learning more about ELL perspectives, and in no way is intended to harm the ELL participants or
their employers. By examining ELLs’ workplace experiences and identifying avenues for equity,
the study will generate a better understanding of the engagement between the organization and
ELLs and, in doing so, deliver value to both parties working together in the future.
As Harper (2012, p. 9) noted,
persons are not born into a minority status, nor are they minoritized in every
social context (e.g., their families, racially homogeneous friendship groups, or
places of worship). Instead, they are rendered minorities in particular situations
and institutional environments that sustain an overrepresentation of Whiteness.
47

Organizations and institutions have many ways of creating equity for ELLs, but the
burden must not be theirs. This research explains ELLs’ workplace experiences and
identifies their suggestions for building equity.
Finally, it was important to ask myself what does urban education mean for me? When I
joined the Organizational Change and Leadership (OCL) program, I found Rossier’s mission for
urban education a bit abstract. Through the OCL program, as I finish my journey in this
community and complete my dissertation, I have gained increased awareness and understanding
of systemic racism. My desire and commitment to supporting underserved populations have also
increased. Therefore, it is time for me to move beyond individual action and actively advocate
for institutional changes.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability and validity are concepts used to evaluate research quality. They indicate how
well a method, technique, or test measures something. Reliability is concerned with
the consistency of a measure, while validity focuses on accuracy. Concerns regarding reliability
and validity are mitigated by paying attention to the study’s conceptualization and design
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), especially in quantitative research. Also, the researcher closely
followed the study protocol to increase reliability by consistently measuring survey variables
(Salkind & Frey, 2020).
Particular attention was also given to the content validity of the survey and interview
questions (Salkind & Frey, 2020) to ensure that the ELLs clearly understood the meaning of the
questions. Validity was enhanced by adapting other surveys, thus increasing the likelihood of the
survey working well for its intended purposes. Teaching English to speakers of other languages
(TESOL) subject matter experts and committee members were consulted to ensure that the
48

surveys and interview questions were valid and aligned with the study’s research questions and
conceptual framework.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Several methods were used to increase credibility and trustworthiness. Participants
received standard communications in content and frequency to ensure consistency. Then, the
interview transcription’s accuracy was given extra attention and due diligence. Participants were
offered an opportunity to member check (review) their transcribed interview notes (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016) and provide any additional clarification or corrections. Triangulation (Patton,
1999) using multiple methods or data sources helped the researcher understand the ELLs’
experiences.
The process of triangulation and iterative qualitative data analysis identified common
themes among study participants and connected them to the survey data. Four interview
participants answered the survey, but there were no discernible differences in triangulating and
coding the data between those who did or did not complete the survey. Throughout the research
process, the goal has been to provide plausible interpretations (Lichtman, 2013) that are sincere
and significantly contribute to the body of knowledge, particularly solutions focused on building
equity for ELL technology workers in Fortune 500 companies.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted in two phases. The first phase involved extensive data
analysis based on the responses of the 23 qualified participants who completed the 50-question
survey. The second phase analyzed the information received during seven participant interviews,
responding to eight semi-structured interview questions. This data comprised the total data set
49

for this mixed-methods study. After completing phases one and two, the researcher triangulated
qualitative and quantitative data to improve reliability and credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Triangulating data, comparing and cross-checking data at different times and places, and
interviewing people help connect the research to the “real world” (Wolcott, 2005, p. 160). The
qualitative data in the study described how ELLs are situated in their workplace experience
relative to the quantitative findings. Triangulation also addresses concerns that the study’s
findings are an artifact of a single source or method, or the researcher’s “blinders” (Patton, 2015,
p. 674).
Survey data was collected, analyzed, interpreted, and presented to provide a wide range
of variables that deliver factual findings at a point in time. Given the small sample size,
quantitative and qualitative data allowed the findings to be considered from multiple data points.
However, given the study’s small sample size, there is no expectation that the results and
findings will be generalizable.
Method 1: Quantitative Data From the Participant Survey
The survey asked closed-ended questions regarding the participant’s current role,
supervisor, perspective on diversity, equity, inclusion in the workplace, and demographic data.
The survey design included 50 closed-ended questions, listed in Appendix B.
Instrumentation
Quantitative data were generated from the study’s Qualtrics survey. After four screening
questions, the study began by exploring participants’ workplace experiences in the context of
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Adapting Factoric’s 2021 survey, DEI data was captured
about the microsystem (the supervisor), the mesosystem (the team/department/co-workers), and
the exosystem (the company/organization). Each DEI question was repeated for each layer of the
50

study’s adapted ecological systems model. A six-point Likert scale captured participants’
sentiments regarding DEI (Appendix B, Qs 20–29).
In addition to DEI questions, the survey included questions about (a) job satisfaction
(Appendix B, Qs 3–5); (b) the participant’s relationship with their supervisor and feedback
(Appendix B, Qs 6–9) adapted from a Qualtrics-provided survey about employee satisfaction;
and (c) employee engagement as measured by e-NPS (employee net promoter score).
Job Satisfaction
Boswell et al. (2005) explored the idea that positive job satisfaction correlated to shorter
job tenure, known as the “honeymoon-hangover effect.” Beyond situational factors, there is
evidence that job satisfaction is partly dispositional and stable across time and situations
(Gerhart, 1987; Staw et al., 1986; Staw & Ross, 1985). More recently, a meta-analysis (Connolly
& Viswesvaran, 2000) showed that job satisfaction correlates positively with a person’s
predisposition to experience positive emotion. Findings of the relationship between state and trait
effects and various work attitudes, including job satisfaction, were further supported in a meta-
analysis (Thoresen et al., 2003)
Employee Net Promoter Score (e-NPS)
Bain & Company created e-NPS in 2003 (Markey & Reichheld, 2011) as a different way
to evaluate customer engagement instead of satisfaction. Organizations have since adapted e-
NPS to measure employee sentiment. The employee net promoter score (Appendix B, Question
11) provides insight into participants’ engagement with their employers (the company). The e-
NPS is calculated using one question: On a scale of 0–10, how likely are you to recommend your
company to a friend or colleague? Respondents are then categorized into three brackets.
51

First, detractors are unhappy and unlikely to encourage others to join the organization.
Detractors respond with a score of 0–6. Second, passives are satisfied but probably not enough to
advocate for the organization as an employer of choice; passive employees respond with a score
of 7 or 8. They may leave the organization and pose the greatest risk of churn and turnover.
Third, promoters are typically loyal and enthusiastic (Markey & Reichheld, 2011). A promoter
will likely be a brand ambassador by sharing positive reviews online, engaging with social
media, and recommending the company to friends or colleagues; a promoter responds with a
score of 9 or 10.
Data Collection Procedures
Participants received an invitation via email from the researcher or responded to requests
for participation via social media sites. The initial emails and social media postings encouraged
people to share this study opportunity with others. A hyperlink directed potential participants to
the study survey, where they acknowledged their informed consent to participate and confirmed
their eligibility via four screening questions. The survey was designed in Qualtrics, using a
standard USC template with the university logo to provide additional credibility to the request.
Participants were told that the survey might take 20 minutes to complete. Response times ranged
from 7 to 34 minutes. The average time required for survey completion was 13 minutes. Survey
data was collected from mid-January to early February 2022 for 3 weeks.
The survey captured quantitative data in the first round of data analysis to identify trends
or correlations between the ELLs and their supervisor, their team or department, the
organization, and their opinions about diversity, equity, and inclusion. A total of 25 individuals
responded to the researcher’s direct solicitations via email and social media. Two survey
respondents were born in the United States and indicated English as their first language, so their
52

responses were eliminated from the final analysis. The remaining 23 individuals completed more
than 80% of the questions, and those responses were considered substantially complete to
support a reasonable quantitative analysis.
The survey captured demographic data aligned with the 2020 U.S. Census to identify
potential trends or correlations against different variables. The participants were asked 18
demographic questions (Appendix B, Qs 35–50), with optional demographic questions at the end
of the survey. This offered respondents a sense of safety and comfort when providing personal
information. Participants could answer only those questions they felt would not reveal their
identities. For some demographic variables, as few as 16 participants answered the question, but
it does not appear to have affected the data analysis.
Analysis of Survey Data
While the data collection process was sequential, data analysis was iterative.
Furthermore, after three weeks, with sufficient survey responses to meet the study criteria, the
survey data was analyzed before interviews were conducted. The data analysis began with the
DEI questions, then demographic data, and finally, human resource (HR) metrics were analyzed.
HR metrics included (a) the ELLs’ job satisfaction (the individual at the core of the ecological
systems model), (b) the ELLs’ relationship with their supervisor (the microsystem), and (c)
company e-NPS (exosystem). Standard HR metrics were juxtaposed against ELLs’ perceptions
of overall DEI. Using DEI and HR metrics together provided a broader perspective on the ELLs’
workplace experiences.
Many survey items used an ordinal Likert-scale set, and those ordinal measurement
scales were converted to numerical form. For example, the Likert scale for survey questions 3–9
and 12–14 (Appendix B) was extremely satisfied, moderately satisfied, slightly satisfied, slightly
53

dissatisfied, moderately dissatisfied, and extremely dissatisfied. These were converted to the
numerical form with a range of 1 to 6 (6 = extremely satisfied to 1 = extremely dissatisfied). A
similar approach was taken for converting other ordinal data to numbers. Converting ordinal data
to numerical values allowed the researcher to apply statistical measures to data elements to
identify correlations and relationships between many facets of the ELLs’ work experiences.
After all the responses had been received, text values were coded and converted to
numeric values, and individual scores were calculated. Next, aggregate scores for diversity,
equity, and inclusion were calculated, and then aggregate scores for DEI were developed. Once
quantified and aggregated, the researcher began evaluating the data elements against one another
to identify possible connections using Qualtrics. DEI values were evaluated against one another:
job satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, and e-NPS. As the data was evaluated, the following
statistical measures were used (in alphabetical order):
Correlation. This is a numerical index that reflects the relationship between two
variables. Specifically, it reveals how the value of one variable changes at the same time as
another. All variables analyzed had a direct positive correlation, which means that as one
variable increased, the other variable increased. A complete correlation between two variables is
expressed as +1 or –1. The closer to +1 or –1, the stronger the correlation. With limited
exceptions, as documented in Chapter Four, Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient
(r) was calculated to determine the amount of variability shared between two variables.
Coefficient of Determination (R
2
). This value is computed by squaring Pearson’s
product-moment correlation coefficient (r). R
2
measures how well a value for one variable could
be predicted by entering a value for the second variable and assesses the strength of the
relationship between variables. A correlation coefficient from 0.5 to 1.0 is a strong relationship.
54

It is the percentage of variance in one variable accounted for by the variance in the other
variable.
Cohen’s d (Effect Size). The effect size (d) measures the magnitude of the difference
between two groups. It is a way to compare one group against another. A small effect size ranges
from 0 to 0.2, a medium effect size ranges from 0.2 to 0.8, and a large effect size is any value
above 0.8. An effect size of 0 means the groups are very similar, whereas an effect size of 1
means the groups overlap about 45%. As d increases, the groups have less overlap and are more
distinct.
Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient. This statistic expressed as r
explains the effect size. Practically speaking, this means it determines if the relationship is
meaningful. In general, r > 0.5 indicates a large effect. If one variable’s value does not change as
the other value changes, the variables have nothing in common, which is expressed as r = 0.
Collecting diverse data to understand the relationship between two variables is important.
Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient. Known as Spearman’s rho (RS), it is used to
identify the correlation between two variables. However, it is created by ranking a variable’s
value or buckets (i.e., high, medium, and low) rather than the raw data.
T-Test. The t-test is a way to compare the means (M) from each group of scores and their
differences. A t-test (p) indicates that a single group of the same subjects is being studied under
two conditions; therefore, the second set of values depends on its relations to the first set of
values. To interpret the t-test, p < .05 indicates that the probability of success is less than 5%.

55

Method 2: Qualitative Data From Participant Interviews
Qualitative data were gathered during the participant interviews. Interviews were used to
provide additional context for the quantitative survey data. Based on the survey data, using the
semi-structured interview questions, the researcher probed interview participants about specific
elements of the survey data to identify opportunities to build equity.
Instrumentation
The interview guide in Appendix C lists the semi-structured questions used to explore
participants’ perspectives and insights regarding their work experience and their suggestions for
building meaningful equity for them and other ELLs.
Data Collection Procedures
Nine ELL individuals volunteered for the 1-hour interview; subsequently, two could not
complete the interview within the timeframe needed to collect the data. Participants received a
$25 Amazon gift card via email upon completion of the interview as an incentive. Interviews
ranged from 49–71 minutes and were conducted via Zoom. The average interview length was 60
minutes, and the interviews were recorded and transcribed using Zoom’s online transcription
capability. The researcher then carefully reviewed transcripts to ensure accuracy. Analyses,
reflections, and preliminary conclusions concerning the data in interview transcripts relative to
the study’s research question and the conceptual framework were compiled following each
interview.
Interview Data Analysis
After completing all seven interviews, the researcher used deductive reasoning and
analyzed emerging themes to apply a priori codes developed from the literature and conceptual
framework to all interview responses to thematically and systematically code the interviews
56

using atlas.ti. The keywords in the initial qualitative analysis were supervisor/boss,
coworkers/department/team/teammates, company/organization/[company name], feedback
learning, and equity. Other keywords were identified by conducting the coding process through
three iterations. Axial codes were then created to place ELLs’ workplace experience interviews
into broader themes connected to the adapted ecological systems model and the study’s goal to
identify equity-building opportunities. The axial codes are diversity, equity, inclusion, job
satisfaction, supervisory satisfaction, learning/talent development, organizational satisfaction (e-
NPS), and team. Interview data supported or refuted assumptions after evaluating the ELLs’
workplace experiences and suggestions for building equity. Interview findings, with the literature
and survey data results, served as the principal decision criteria for each recommendation in
Chapter Five.
Research Ethics
The researcher followed the University of Southern California (USC) Institutional
Review Board (IRB) guidelines for this study. In approving research studies, USC’s IRB adhered
to the ethical principles of The Nuremberg Code and the Report of the U.S. National
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research
(1978). The researcher provided participants with sufficient information to make informed
decisions about the risks and benefits of participating. The researcher also advised participants
that they had a right to withdraw from the study at any point as the study was designed to
eliminate an unnecessary risk to research participants. Finally, the researcher obtained IRB
certification from the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) as a qualified
investigator to conduct the study.
57

Before conducting the research, the researcher may have known some of the study
participants professionally, but she was not their supervisor. To mitigate any conflicts of interest
or potential breaches of ethical constraints, the researcher consulted with her dissertation chair,
who agreed to serve as an ethical advisor for this study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher informed study participants of the research purpose, its role in developing
her doctoral dissertation, and steps taken to ensure the anonymity of the organizations and
participants. The project’s primary goal was to gather information that will help organizations
understand the workplace experience from the ELLs’ point of view. The study will guide
organizations to increase their efforts to build equity for English language learners, supporting
language diversity. Study participants were advised that personally identifiable information (e.g.,
names, ages, job positions/titles, language[s] spoken) would remain confidential. Participants
were also informed that their data would be anonymized to maintain privacy. Survey participants
received no incentive for their involvement in the study (Glesne, 2011), while, as mentioned
above, interview participants each received a $25 Amazon gift card.
Participant conversations and identifying data were secured electronically on a platform
accessible only to the researcher by password or physical constraints. After reviewing the
interview transcripts for accuracy and completeness, the researcher immediately destroyed the
recordings. A reference document containing the participants’ names and the unique IDs or
pseudonyms assigned to each person was maintained offline.
Overall, the intent of this study was not to harm either ELL participants or their
employers. Instead, the study aimed to understand ELLs’ experiences better as they work in
highly skilled technology roles for Fortune 500 companies. The researcher hopes that any
58

learnings and the resulting recommendations will demonstrate the potential for building mutually
beneficial employee-employer relationships by increasing equity.
Limitations and Delimitations
The study has several potential limitations beyond the control of the researcher.
Purposeful sampling may lend bias as participants share their personal opinions (Locke et al.,
2010). If non-respondents had chosen to participate, the responses might have changed the
surveys and interview data sets (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As this study represents the
perspective and experience of a small group of ELLs, the ability to generalize the study’s
findings is limited. The study also depended on the participants’ truthful responses.
As mentioned, 23 qualified participants completed the survey, and seven individuals
completed the 60-minute interview. Time constraints limited the number of questions for the
survey and interview. Research participants were a diverse group by many measures, including
age, language spoken, country of origin, and gender. However, somewhat surprisingly, all but
two survey respondents were married, and 62% had acquired their jobs in the past two years.
The research project had several delimitations. Delimitations are conscious choices made
in the research design that have implications for the data collected. First, the study was limited to
ELLs who were W-2 employees. Fortune 500 companies extensively employ contractors whose
workplace experience is known to be substantially different from regular employees. In
particular, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations in the United States prohibit employers
from training contractors, and training is known to be a vehicle for delivering equity.
Second, the study did not engage with supervisors, HR, learning and development
professionals, and other workplace stakeholders, including leaders and senior executives. Other
stakeholders may have provided different insights into the factors that support and inhibit the
59

organizations’ ability to support ELLs equitably. Focusing on ELLs is supported by Ushioda’s
(2016) proposal that research agendas for language learning should be focused, moving away
from generalizations across large populations. Looking at a small population, in our case, the
ELL technology workforce in Fortune 500 companies, helped the researcher better understand
specific factors affecting the experiences of the study’s ELL participants.
60

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
This study explored the ELLs’ workplace experiences working in technology roles in
Fortune 500 companies. Data was gathered and analyzed using a mixed-methods approach that
guided and informed the recommendations for building equity. Nine themes emerged from the
data and are presented in Table 2 in order of importance to inform the study’s recommendations.
Recommendations are shared in Chapter Five based on the themes supported by the literature
and this dissertation’s research data.

Table 2
Themes Identified for Research Questions 1 and 2
Theme Description Model layer Research
question
1 ELLs and their workplace experiences are diverse Center 1
2 ELLs want to succeed Center 1
3 Teams are crucial to ELLs’ workplace experience Mesosystem 1
4 ELLs’ relationships with the supervisor Microsystem 1
5 Low organizational engagement (e-NPS) Exosystem 1
6 Talent development is lacking for ELLs Microsystem
Mesosystem
Exosystem

2
7 Oral presentation skills are crucial to succeed Mesosystem 2
8 Employee resource groups and communities of
practice provide safety and support

Mesosystem 2
9 ELLs’ value artificial intelligence Center
Mesosystem
2

61

Results and Findings for Research Question 1
Five themes emerged from the survey and interview data for Research Question 1 (RQ1).
RQ1 sought to gather quantitative and qualitative data related to ELLs perceptions of their
workplace experience within the framework of DEI at each level of the adapted ESM
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The ELLs’ DEI experience was also evaluated in comparison to their
sentiments about job satisfaction, their supervisor, and engagement with the organization,
measured by e-NPS.
Theme 1: ELLs Are Diverse
ELLs are diverse, as are their wide-ranging workplace experiences, and this diversity is
evident in census data (Colby & Ortman, 2015) and this study’s survey data, beginning with
Table 3. Demographic data has been disaggregated across several tables to protect respondents’
identities and ensure confidentiality to the greatest extent possible. As well as being diverse by
numbers, interview participants’ workplace experiences also varied.
In particular, regarding language, survey respondents spoke 16 different languages, in
addition to English (see Table 4). Overall, 17% of participants spoke three, four, or five
languages (including English). ELLs had spoken English on average for 31 years, with five the
median age of English language acquisition. Survey participants started learning English
between 1–16, and seven was the average age. ELLs in this study had spoken English for a
minimum of 5 years, and the maximum was 57. Beyond language, 38% of participants were born
in the United States, and the remaining participants were born in seven other countries across six
continents

Table 3
Survey Participant Demographics
Participant Gender/
race*
Languages
spoken**
Years speaking
English
Age
acquired
Time in
current role
Highest
education level
Job level
P1 F/C 4 34 2 < 1 year Masters Supervisor/manager
P2 F/C 3 – – 1–2 years Doctorate Individual contributor
P3 M/A 3 22 8 – Masters Supervisor/manager
P4 M/A 3 15 5 1–2 years Masters Supervisor/manager
P5 M/C 2 5 1 5+ years Doctorate Individual contributor
P6 M/A 2 8 1 < 1 year Bachelors Supervisor/manager
P7 F/A 3 12 2 5+ years Bachelors Individual contributor
P8 M/I 2 18 3 < 1 year Masters Team leader
P9 F/A 2 20 5 < 1 year Masters Individual contributor
P10 F/H 2 17 5 5+ years – –
P11 M/A 2 34 5 1–2 years Masters Supervisor/manager
P12 M/C 2 38 4 – – –
P13 M/A 2 40 7 1–2 years Masters Team leader

62

Participant Gender/
race*
Languages
spoken**
Years speaking
English
Age
acquired
Time in
current role
Highest
education level
Job level
P14 F/H 2 40 10 3–4 years Masters Supervisor/manager
P15 M/B 2 40 10 < 1 year Doctorate Supervisor/manager
P16 M/A 2 50 12 5+ years Masters Team leader
P17 M/C 5 54 13 5+ years Masters Team leader
P18 M/B 2 – – 3–4 years Doctorate Individual contributor
P19 F/A 3 57 16 < 1 year Bachelors Individual contributor
P20 F/C 2 31 7 < 1 year – Individual contributor
P21 F/A 2 40 5 1–2 years Masters Individual contributor
P22 F/C 3 – – < 1 year Bachelors Individual contributor
P23 F/C 2 36 5 5+ years Masters Individual contributor

*Male(M), Female(F), Asian(A), American Indian or Alaska Native (I), Black (B), Caucasian(C), Hispanic or Latinx (H).
** Languages spoken, not including English.
63
64

Table 4
Languages Spoken by Survey Participants (Not Including English)
Row Language n
1 Hindi 4
2 French 3
3 Chinese 2
4 Spanish 2
5 Mandarin Chinese 1
6 Portuguese 1
7 Romanian 1
8 Greek 1
9 Russian 1
10 Arabic 1
11 Tamil 1
12 Nepali 1
13 Telugu 1
14 Dari 1
15 German 1
16 Polish 1

Note. N = 23

The top four languages spoken by survey participants were Hindi, French, Chinese, and
Spanish. All ELLs spoke English, but not all ELLs were foreign-born. Of the respondents, 38%
were born in the United States, and 62% were born outside the United States in seven different
countries. Participants were evenly divided about their language preferences at home, with 50%
indicating they preferred speaking English with family and friends outside work, and the
remaining 50% preferred using their native language at home.
65

Beyond language, Table 3 shows that 38% of the ELLs have moved to other roles or
companies in the last year, and another 21% in the last one to two years. A further 12% have
persisted for three to four years, and only 29% have been in their role for five or more years (n =
21). Supervisors comprised 33% of survey participants, 19% were team leaders, and the
remaining 48% were individual contributors (n = 21). The ELLs participating in this study are
highly educated, with 20% holding a doctoral degree, 60% holding a master’s, and 20% holding
a bachelor’s (n = 20). Four participants have completed specialized training leading to advanced
certification, and nine participants were currently pursuing additional college education, not
shown above in Table 3.
The survey group comprised 12 men and 11 women. After extensive demographic data
analysis, including elements listed later in this section, no variable, except gender, was correlated
to respondents’ opinions about DEI. The effect size (d) in a gender-ranked t-test was 1.25. This
result means that women tend to have a much higher opinion of DEI in their organizations than
their male counterparts. The larger the effect size (d), the less the groups have in common.
Chapter Three provides a more detailed explanation of Cohen’s d. However, an effect size of 1
means the groups overlap about 45%. The amount of overlap is not absolute in all cases, but
based on the effect size (d), it is expected that the effect size will not change in similar
populations based on the sample size. Next, participants represented seven industries listed in
Table 5 and companies across the United States, as shown in Figure 2.

66

Table 5
Industry Representation
Industry %
Technology 40
Consulting 20
Media/entertainment 15
Chemicals 5
Defense 5
Financial 5
Healthcare 5
Other/unknown 5

Note. N = 20

The largest group of survey respondents (40%) worked in a company delivering
technology services or related equipment as their primary business. The remaining 60% worked
in seven different industry categories, and study participants provided the technical support each
company needed to deliver on its mission. Twenty percent worked in consulting, 15% in media
and entertainment, and 5% each in defense, financial services, healthcare, and chemicals. The
remaining 5% selected other.

67

Figure 2
Survey Participants by Location

Note. N = 21. The latitude and longitude collected from the Qualtrics survey’s embedded
metadata determined the participant's location.

Other than the Midwest, the survey represented every U.S. region, with 43% of
respondents located in the Northeast, as was the researcher. Another 19% were in the Southeast
and West, and 9.5% were in the Southwest. Two participants (9.5%) were outside the Unites
States when they completed the survey, which is plausible because many were still working
68

remotely due to the effects of COVID-19. A Fortune 500 company is a U.S. company, but many
have offices offshore.
Finally, as shown in 6, age diversity was also present in our survey participants,
demonstrated through 10% of ELLs being on the fringes of the working population in the 18–24
and 55+ groups, but 40% were in the 45–54 age bracket. Given the study criteria that participants
could not be in senior leadership positions, these top two age brackets representing half the study
group are working in entry- to mid-level positions. In the data analysis, age was not correlated to
statistically significant differences in measures of DEI, job satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction,
or e-NPS.

Table 6
Survey Participants Distributed by Age Group
Age group 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55+
10% 20% 20% 40% 10%

Note. N = 20

69

Home Environment
Finally, the home environment was not this study’s primary focus. However, several
demographics (Appendix B, Qs 49–51) were captured to provide a glimpse of the participants’
lived experiences outside work. Nine participants (39%) indicated they were their household’s
primary income earner, while 19 (83%) indicated they were married, and two (17%) were never
married.
Altogether, 33% of participants indicated children under age 18 in the household. Two
households had one child, three had two children, and two had three children. Two households
had adults over 65, and two had adults aged 18–64 living with them who were not family
members. Household sizes ranged from one to six. The typical household was a married couple
aged 18–64 with no children.
Survey participants were diverse, but so were interview participants. Four interview
participants indicated they completed the survey data but connecting that interview data to
survey data was impossible due to IRB's data privacy concerns. As illustrated in interview
participants’ stories, the ELLs’ workplace experiences are as diverse as their languages, ages,
industries, technical expertise, roles, and work locations.
Interview Participant Demographics
Seven participants completed semi-structured interviews via Zoom between January 31
and February 21, 2022. Survey completion was not required to participate in the study’s
interview phase, and interview participants were not asked extensive demographic questions to
preserve limited interview time. However, Table 7 shows there is diversity even in a small
sample of ELLs.

70

Table 7
Interview Participant Demographics
Pseudonym Gender First
language
Job level/function Interview
length
(minutes)
Completed
survey
Sam M Hindi Team leader/
product strategy

55 
Elena F Chinese Individual contributor/
product management

67 
Stefan M Mandarin
Chinese
Individual contributor/
data science

59
Calli F Hindi Individual contributor/
project management

61 
Bridget F Chinese Team leader/
data science

49
Stella F Portuguese Team leader/
program management

71
Zach M French Individual contributor/
database engineer

58 

*Male (M), Female (F)

Three men and four women participated in the interviews. Four were individual
contributors, and three were team leaders. The interview participants’ first languages were Hindi
(n = 2), Chinese (n = 2), and one each, French, Mandarin Chinese, and Portuguese. Interview
participants represented various roles in product management and strategy, program
management, and technical skills, including two data scientists and a database engineer. Unlike
survey participants, no interview participants were supervisors. ELLs’ stories are shared
71

throughout the remainder of Chapter Four to provide evidence supporting the themes this
research uncovered.
Theme 2: Employees Want to Succeed
In total, 13% of ELLs experienced workplace discrimination (i.e., unfair, harmful, or
adverse treatment), and 38% believed they had been passed over for a promotion because they
were ELLs. Due to the small number of data points, calculating any statistical significance
between discrimination and job satisfaction was impossible. Aside from groups’ social aspects, it
is important to note that ELLs state as their first goal is an opportunity to advance economically
(Finn, 2011; Hayes, 1989).
Unlike this study, many organizations do not measure ELLs’ beliefs about DEI.
Therefore, one goal of this study was to determine whether job satisfaction can serve as a proxy
for ELLs appraisal of their workplace experience. Survey respondents were asked to assess their
job satisfaction as part of the study design. Table 8 shows how satisfied or dissatisfied ELLs
were with their current job (Appendix B, Q3). While 21.7% of ELLs were extremely satisfied
with their job, 26.1% were extremely or moderately dissatisfied. A little over 52% in the mid-
range were slightly or moderately satisfied with their job.

72

Table 8
Job Satisfaction
Rating %
Extremely dissatisfied 8.7
Moderately dissatisfied 17.4
Slightly dissatisfied 0.0
Slightly satisfied 8.7
Moderately satisfied 43.5
Extremely satisfied 21.7

Note. N = 23

The literature shows that most organizations believe job satisfaction correlates to better
performance. Many models and empirical research identify job dissatisfaction as a precursor to
turnover (Hom & Griffeth, 1995; March & Simon, 1993; Steers & Mowday, 1981). Generally,
dissatisfaction with one’s job triggers thoughts about leaving (Ashforth, 2000; Mobley, 1977). In
particular, Boswell et al. (2005) explored the idea that positive job satisfaction is correlated to
shorter job tenure: the “honeymoon-hangover effect.” Like Boswell, this study identified no
correlation between job tenure and job satisfaction, despite the apparent high turnover rates
shown in Table 3. Therefore, if high turnover indicates low job satisfaction, and as shown in
Figure 3, ELLs’ opinions about DEI are connected, it is plausible that improving ELLs’
workplace experience will reduce turnover.
73

Figure 3
Job Satisfaction and Overall DEI

Note. N = 23. Due to the small sample size, r could not be calculated. Chapter Three explains the
process of converting ordinal values in the Likert scale to nominal data so a ranked correlation
can be calculated.

Figure 3 shows that participants’ job satisfaction strongly correlates with the respondent’s
ratings of DEI. Other models and research suggest that job satisfaction affects (or at least
partially influences) organizational attributes such as turnover, compensation, advancement
opportunities, and work-group relations. All elements are important to ELLs, so job satisfaction
can be a proxy until organizations measure ELLs’ DEI workplace experience. In Chapter Five,
the study will present the cost of turnover to support a call to action for organizations to accept
and implement the study’s recommendations.
74

Two more questions closed this section about job satisfaction. ELLs were asked to rate
how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with their ability to apply their skills and experience in
their current role (Appendix B, Q4). As shown in Table 9, the results were mixed, with 26% of
participants moderately or extremely satisfied with their ability to apply their skills and
experience to their current role. However, an equal number were extremely dissatisfied.

Table 9
Ability to Apply Skills and Experience on the Job
Rating %
Extremely dissatisfied 13.0
Moderately dissatisfied 13.0
Slightly dissatisfied 8.7
Slightly satisfied 4.4
Moderately satisfied 34.8
Extremely satisfied 26.1

Note. N = 23

75

Calculating r was attempted by comparing general job satisfaction (Appendix B, Q3) and
the ELLs’ ability to apply their skills and experience (Appendix B, Q4), but there was no
statistically significant relationship. Therefore, Q4 was eliminated from additional analyses. As
shown in Table 10, survey participants were also asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they were
with their ability to do interesting work in their current roles (Appendix B, Q5). In response,
68% of participants said they are moderately or extremely satisfied with their ability to do
interesting work in their current role. However, like their ability to apply their skills on the job,
there is no statistically significant relationship between general job satisfaction (Appendix B,
Q3) and the ELLs’ ability to do interesting work (Appendix B, Q5). Therefore, this question was
also eliminated from further analyses. While quantitative data had no statistical significance,
interviews provided some cursory comments, which are included throughout.

Table 10
Ability to Do Interesting Work
Rating %
Extremely dissatisfied 9.1
Moderately dissatisfied 13.6
Slightly dissatisfied 0.0
Slightly satisfied 9.1
Moderately satisfied 45.5
Extremely satisfied 22.7

Note. N = 23
76

Theme 3: Teams Are Vital to ELLs’ Workplace Experience
DEI correlation scores in each layer of the ESM were sorted from largest to smallest, and
ELLs’ ratings of their team were three of the top four individual factors influencing their
workplace experience. In 1979 Bronfenbrenner defined the mesosystem as the space where
individuals interact with their peers, co-workers, supervisor, teams, and other departments. In the
ESM, interactions in the mesosystem allow ELLs to experience others throughout the
organization.
The top four relationships are shown in Table 11. Rows 1, 2, and 4 show that the ELLs’
co-workers and the mesosystem (the team and department) are a large part of ELLs’ sentiments
about equity, inclusion, and diversity (in that order).

Table 11
Teams’ Contributions to ELLs’ Workplace Experience
Rank Description r R
2

1 Equity and the department/team 0.977 0.955
2 Inclusion and the department team 0.969 0.938
3 Overall inclusion versus respect 0.965 .820
4 Diversity and the department/team 0.955 0.913

77

Equity and the Department/Team
Quantitative and qualitative data about ELLs assessment of their experience in teams
begins with Figure 4. A strong correlation (r = 0.977) exists between overall equity and equity in
the mesosystem (their team and co-workers). R
2
indicates (0.955) the consistency of survey
participants' answers on the line of best fit. Interview participants provide rich context about their
co-workers and participation in ERG and COPs.

Figure 4
Equity and the Department/Team

Note. r = 0.977; R
2
= 0.955

78

ELLs’ stories are consistent with the qualitative data. For instance, Sam stated that “If it
weren’t for my team, I’d look for a different job. They are my friends, and for now, I’m happy.”
Further, Bridget shared,
there has been so much happening. My team is the best. When the time is right, I’ll look
for another opportunity, but it’s nice to know my team has my back. Between sick kids
and sick parents, and then I got COVID, it’s been non-stop.
In further commentary from participants relevant to this point, Calli detailed, “my team was way
behind schedule, by months and months. They made it clear to my boss that the delays were not
my fault. Sometimes it’s easy to blame the project manager. I’m grateful they didn’t let that
happen.” Zach also commented that,
I don’t think people realize, but our department is going to temporary project teams. Once
we’re done with our current assignments, we’ll be put in a pool to work on a different
team. I don’t think it’s going to be good. My teammates are my friends, and we’ve
worked hard to get to a place where we know each other’s strengths and weaknesses.
Equity throughout the ESM impacts all measures of DEI and the ELLs’ workplace
experiences. However, the connection to the team made the most significant contribution to an
ELL’s rating of overall equity. Beyond individual interactions with team members on specific
projects, interview participants participated in ERGs and COPs. They had strong opinions about
the value of ERGs and COPs for their professional development. Details about ERGs and COPs
are presented in Theme 8.
79

Inclusion and the Department/Team
Next, Figure 5 shows ELLs’ workplace experience, measured by inclusion with their
team and co-workers. Following equity, this highlights the power of the department, team, and
co-workers in creating a sense of belonging for ELLs.

Figure 5
Inclusion in the Mesosystem

Note. r = 0.969 R
2
= 0.938

80

Aside from survey data, interview participants spoke highly of their co-workers and team
members and their sense of belonging and inclusion. Stella said, “My team helps me when I
don’t feel comfortable talking to my boss, and I need to figure something out.” Bridget
concurred, crediting teammates as valuable sources of information in saying, “I hear about
training opportunities from co-workers. That’s helpful because our boss is busy.” Relatedly,
Stefan remarked, “Thankfully, my co-workers communicate with me…we watch out for each
other.”
Moreover, Stella described her co-workers and stated,
we’re a team. We make sure we all know what is going on. Now that our team is bigger,
we have different [supervisors]. I would have been in the dark. I almost missed a chance
to apply for a scholarship.
Zach noted that his supervisor
runs hot and cold. It’s inconsistent. When things get busy, our weekly team meetings get
canceled. Then it’s the grapevine. I’d rather get an email update rather than nothing. I
don’t think [my supervisor] realizes how much we value the knowledge we get in those
meetings.
Analysis of Diversity in the Mesosystem
For now, we stay in the mesosystem with the ELLs’ teams and hold off on exploring
factor three, overall inclusion and respect, as it relates to the ELLs’ workplace experience. The
ELLs’ teams, departments, and co-workers contributed fourth to their workplace experience, as
shown in Figure 6.

81

Figure 6
Team Versus Diversity

Note. r = 0.955; R
2
= 0.913

Overall, respondents’ ratings of their team strongly positively correlated to their rating of
diversity. R
2
(the line of best fit) indicates that one would be reasonably successful in predicting
an ELL’s views about diversity since ELLs were consistent in their responses.
Interview participants articulated diversity by describing their team members and the power of
their collective skills, talents, and personalities. Stella commented,
I have to laugh, we do look like the United Nations, but my [White male leader] misses
the point. We are overeducated. We speak many different languages, work hard, and have
work experience beyond just technology. Just in my small group of friends, we have a
82

rocket scientist with a Ph.D. who worked on the space station, an engineer who knows a
lot about 3-D printing, and a trainer who used to be [an elementary school] teacher, born
in four different countries. I need to count and see how many languages we speak-the
only thing we have in common is English. [The team] may look like the UN, but
leadership does not.
In another example comment from a participant, Bridget shared,
we have a great team. We rely on each other a lot. No one [person] can keep up with how
fast things change. Last year Tableau® was the thing, and now, it’s PowerBI®. It’s never
boring, but it’s a lot to learn. Usually, one of us will get trained up and help the rest of us
get up to speed. It seems like most of us have certain things we like, so it’s usually easy
to decide who is going to be the first one to jump in.
Stella and Bridget’s stories provide two viewpoints, one of which pertains to how leaders
interpret diversity, and one to how teams interpret diversity. The leader speaks of diversity, but
his opinion is based on the outward characteristics of the group. In contrast, Bridget understands
that the power of the team lies in their differences. They give one another strength to accomplish
goals that may not seem possible without others’ support. The team relies on each other first, not
looking to leadership to “fix it.”
Overall Inclusion and Respect
To conclude, from the survey data, the third factor in ELLs’ workplace experience is the
relationship between inclusion and respect (Figure 7). Inclusion was measured by three survey
questions about respect, a person’s unique identity, and a sense of belonging (Appendix B, Qs
23–25). When measured in aggregate, across all levels of the ESM, respect was the most
significant driver of respondents’ inclusion rating by a large margin.
83

Figure 7
Overall Inclusion Versus Respect

Note. r = 0.965; R
2
= 0.820

Figure 7 illustrates a strong relationship between inclusion and respect (r = 0.965).
However, the line of best fit, indicating consistency in ELLs’ answers, is weaker than in most
other survey data, with a score of 0.820. Therefore, this accurately predicts that an ELL’s
opinion would be somewhat difficult. While inclusion at all ecosystem levels significantly
impacted ELLs’ workplace experiences, inclusion and respect in the mesosystem were third
overall.

84

Theme 4: ELLs’ Relationships With Their Supervisors
The study defined the supervisor as the person responsible for an employee’s professional
development, providing periodic evaluations of the person’s work. A manager affects
engagement, leading to high performance (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999), so ELLs were asked
how satisfied or dissatisfied they are with their relationship with their supervisor (Appendix B,
Q6). The results are in Table 12, showing that 68% of study participants were extremely satisfied
or moderately satisfied with their relationship with their supervisor. Approximately 23% were
extremely or moderately dissatisfied with it.

Table 12
ELLs’ Relationship With Their Supervisors
Rating %
Extremely dissatisfied 13.6
Moderately dissatisfied 9.1
Slightly dissatisfied 0.0
Slightly satisfied 9.1
Moderately satisfied 27.3
Extremely satisfied 40.9

Note. N = 22

85

Unlike ELLs’ job satisfaction ratings, in this study, their relationship with their
supervisor is not a driving force in turnover. This is despite the popular wisdom (Maxwell, 2008)
that says employees leave managers, not companies. Relationships with co-workers were one of
the top three conditions for work engagement (Mejia, 2016). The other two were opportunities to
use one’s skills on the job and the job's meaningfulness. All three were chosen by over 76% of
the participants.
Analysis of Diversity in the Microsystem
The supervisor is placed in the microsystem for this study’s adapted ESM, and the
relationship with the supervisor accounted for 81.5% of ELLs’ overall DEI rating. While a
strong positive correlation between the supervisor and diversity exists, it is not normally
distributed. The study’s results were inconsistent, so calculating a simple linear regression is not
possible.
Two interview participants suggested DEI training for their supervisors. Stella shared that
her “[senior leader] always says we look like the United Nations. It’s really annoying. That
doesn’t make us a good team, and he needs to look at who leads. [UN leaders] don’t look like
him.” She continued later,
I’m not sure how you fix that. I think they need diversity training that really explains how
they can make people feel important. It would be nice if we had representation in
leadership. It’s hard to think they take DEI seriously when you only see seven White
guys at the top.
Stefan also shared,
Learning to speak English at 15 isn’t easy. I wish they would let us have mentors who
weren’t in our department and someone I can relate to. I’d like a mentor who really wants to
86

support me and has been on a similar journey. I don’t feel comfortable speaking frankly with
others in our department [because I know] it would get back to my boss

Figure 8
Supervisor Versus Diversity

Note. r = 0.897; R
2
(not applicable)
87

As shown in Figure 9, while there was a statistically significant relationship between the
supervisor and inclusion, answers varied, as indicated by R
2
. Interview participants consistently
echoed the value of their relationship with the supervisor. Zach shared that when his family had
COVID-19, “My supervisor was very understanding during a difficult time.” Comments focused
more on the relationship's personal aspects, such as when Bridget stated, “My leader cares about
me, not just the work.” Stella also shared, “[the supervisor] helps us individually and helps us
create a good project team,” and Sam said, “[they] do a good job and try to include everyone.”

Figure 9
Inclusion in the Microsystem

Note. r = 0.919; R
2
= 0.844

88

Equity in the Microsystem
Equity in the microsystem is defined in Figure 10 by looking at the relationship between
the supervisor and the ELL. The supervisor in the microsystem is positively correlated to
inclusion, but the line of best fit (R
2
) is loosely correlated. R
2
indicates some variability in the
respondents’ opinions about the relationship with the supervisor and their sentiment about
equity, contrasting with the relationship between the ELL, their connection to equity and the
team, and the consistency of their answers, described in Figure 4.

Figure 10
Equity and the Supervisor

Note. r = 0.915; R
2
= 0.836

89

Despite variability in the quantitative data, interview participants universally spoke well
of their relationship with their supervisor. Participants’ comments primarily focused on their
supervisors' support in navigating career challenges and decisions. For example, Bridget stated,
I don’t know how I’m going [supervise people], so I’m a little concerned. There is never
any space in the training classes and learning about dealing with people from an online
program seems a little crazy. I know I can do more than just my technical skills, but
that’s just my intuition.
Calli described her supervisor as “warm and encouraging” when she was “trying to decide if I
wanted to change my career path.” She continued, “There is a lot of pressure to become a
supervisor. They really discourage us from becoming too technical.”
Elena also shared,
This is my first official role in product management. Now I’m not sure if this is really
what I want to do. I feel bad. I don’t want my boss to be disappointed. I don’t want to
seem ungrateful for all the support she’s given me. I really like her, so it’s tough. I don’t
want to ruin our good relationship, but I’m worried about losing my technical skills.
Furthermore, Sam mentioned,
My only chance for promotion requires supervising people. My boss is the best, but he
doesn’t get it. All I see is a lot of hassle when people don’t do their job. No thanks. It’s
not personal, we get along great, but being the boss isn’t for me.
Stefan shared, “I have no issues with my boss. I just want to be a techie. I like my team, but I
don’t want to be anyone’s boss.” In a related comment, Stella remarked that
It’s complicated. We used to be friends, but now that she’s my boss, it’s changed. I’m not
happy. I’d rather have a friend, but it’s not because she did anything wrong. I feel like I
90

have to be a superstar, otherwise people will claim she’s playing favorites. It will be
better when I can transfer and have my friend back.
Zach said,
My supervisor is a friend too. Before COVID, we played golf and hung out. Some people
don’t think he’s cool, but they don’t know his life I do. But our friendship doesn’t change
the fact that I’m not going to be working here for long. I want to be a technical leader, not
a people leader. He can’t fix the HR rules.
Moreover, Stella shared that “If it weren’t for my boss, I don’t know what I would do. I don’t
want another master’s, and any in-person training classes listed in our LMS are always full.”
Bridget echoed this sentiment and stated, “Fortunately my boss has money, and has paid for
some great training. Virtual has been better than nothing, but I can’t wait to do some in-person
training where we can get immediate feedback.”
Stephan was complimentary of his supervisor and stated that,
He helps me when I really need it, but my new team has been great. If it weren’t for
them, I’d be feeling lost. I’ve worked [here] a long time, but this department works
differently. It’s like being at a different company.
Stephan’s experience was common and consistent with literature findings (Schein & Schein,
2017). An organization may have a culture and sub-cultures, varying across teams, departments,
functions, locations, and other variables.
Supervisors and Feedback
Despite solid relationships with their supervisors, ELLs’ opinions about feedback were
mixed. Table 13 summarizes how satisfied or dissatisfied ELLs were with their supervisor’s
feedback. (Appendix B, Q7). Only 9.1% of survey respondents were extremely dissatisfied with
91

their supervisor’s feedback. The vast majority, 27.3% and 45.5% of ELLs, were extremely and
moderately satisfied, respectively. Just 18.2% of ELLs were in the middle, slightly satisfied or
dissatisfied with feedback.

Table 13
Satisfaction With Supervisor’s Feedback
Rating %
Extremely dissatisfied 9.1
Moderately dissatisfied 0.0
Slightly dissatisfied 9.1
Slightly satisfied 9.1
Moderately satisfied 45.5
Extremely satisfied 27.3

Note. N = 22

92

Table 14 shows how satisfied or dissatisfied ELLs are with the amount of feedback they
receive from their supervisor (Appendix B, Q8). Overwhelmingly, 68.2% of participants were
extremely or moderately satisfied with the amount of feedback they received. Only 9.1% were
extremely dissatisfied, and in the middle, 22.7% of ELLs were slightly satisfied or slightly
dissatisfied. Elena said, “I get great feedback, but what can I do if it’s something I did weeks
ago?” Zach also said, “I like feedback focused on something I can fix right away. Sam described
his supervisor as “the best,” but not regarding feedback:
I get so much feedback, good and bad, it’s a little over the top. I know there is a big
emphasis on not waiting until year-end evaluations, but nit-picking on every little thing is
borderline micro-managing. Then when we get to year-end and it’s hardly anything in
writing. That affects my raise.

Table 14
Amount of Feedback Received From Supervisor
Rating %
Extremely dissatisfied 9.1
Moderately dissatisfied 0.0
Slightly dissatisfied 13.6
Slightly satisfied 9.1
Moderately satisfied 40.9

Note. N = 22

93

Table 15 presents ELLs’ ratings based on how often they feel they receive valuable
feedback from their supervisor (Appendix B, Q9). Results indicate that almost 14% of ELLs
never received feedback, whereas 9% always received feedback. The remaining responses were
somewhere in the middle, with 77% saying they received feedback sometimes, about half the
time, or most of the time. The common sentiment regarding annual or periodic reviews was “too
little, too late.”
Overall, Bridget shared, “Sometimes I have to dig. I wish people just said what they
mean. I know I’m not perfect. I’m looking to grow. How can I get better without candid
feedback?” Sam was the only interview participant who felt he got too much feedback but still
expressed a desire to receive more timely feedback. Zach succinctly summarized feedback with
this sentiment, “They drum SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely)
goals into our head, but I wish our feedback was SMART-er. Sometimes I get feedback, but it’s
irrelevant to me or not anything I can do differently.”

Table 15
Frequency of Valuable Feedback From the Supervisor
Rating %
Never 13.6
Sometimes 27.3
About half the time 22.7
Most of the time 27.3
Always 9.1

Note. N = 22
94

Figures 11–13 indicate that feedback positively correlated to the ELLs’ relationships with
their supervisors and with job satisfaction. Figure 11 shows that job satisfaction (Appendix B,
Q3) strongly and positively correlates to ELLs’ satisfaction with their supervisor. (Appendix B,
Q6). However, R
2
is 0.813, so accurately predicting the relationship with the supervisor based on
job satisfaction will be challenging outside of the study sample.

Figure 11
Job Satisfaction Versus the Supervisory Relationship

Note. N = 21. r = 0.902; R
2
= 0.813

95

While some connection exists between a supervisor and an ELL, the individuals heavily
influence the relationship. Buckingham and Coffman (1999) illustrated that high engagement
leads to high performance, and Rath and Conchie (2008) noted that leaders with high employee
engagement are rated high in trust. An immediate supervisor can directly impact a person’s
perception of organizational culture. In this study, the ELL’s relationship with the supervisor was
correlated with their DEI rating (Figure 12). However, the data has little predictability, and this
study is focused on building equity through systemic processes.

Figure 12
Overall DEI Versus the Supervisory Relationship

Note. N = 16. r = 0.651; R
2
= 0.424

96

When each component of DEI was evaluated against the relationship with the supervisor
and the standard measures of the: (a) supervisory relationship, (b) job satisfaction, and (c) e-
NPS, all measures were connected to the respondent’s favorable view of their organization’s DEI
efforts, to varying degrees, and the team was more important than the supervisory relationship in
shaping views of DEI.
Theme 5: Employee Engagement (e-NPS) Is Low
According to Bain & Company (Markey & Reichheld, 2011), a net promoter score above
0 is good, above 50 is excellent, and above 80 is world-class. The higher the score, the more
loyal the audience is. NPS is typically focused on one organization. However, despite the study’s
adaptation for multiple organizations, as shown in Figures 13 and 14, it seems clear that
organizations have significant room for improvement regarding ELLs’ employee engagement.

Figure 13
e-NPS for ELLs

Note. e-NPS is calculated by subtracting the percentage of detractors from the percentage of
promoters. In this study, e-NPS is 28.57.
97

Figure 14
e-NPS Detractors, Passives, and Promoters,

Note. Figure 14 illustrates how e-NPS was calculated from this study’s survey data (52–24 = 28),
but many mathematical combinations of detractors, passives, and promoters would also result in
the same e-NPS score.

In this study, e-NPS is strongly correlated to all levels of the participants’ workplace
experience–the supervisor, the team, and the organization/employer represented in the study’s
adapted ESM. When engaged, employees are more connected and committed to advancing
organizational goals. As the literature explains in Chapter Two, job satisfaction measures an
employee receives from an organization. e-NPS measures what an employee is willing to give
back to the organization. Job satisfaction and engagement are not synonymous.
Figure 15, using a ranked correlation, shows the connection between job satisfaction and
e-NPS. However, the relationship is most likely non-linear, as RS = 0.837 indicates. Further
exploration may be warranted to determine if this relationship is found in other groups.

98

Figure 15
e-NPS Versus Job Satisfaction

Note. N = 20, RS = 0.837

Analysis of Diversity in the Exosystem
For this study, the exosystem represents company-wide systems or corporate events.
Events and programs may be focused inward or toward the broader public, typically to build
goodwill. Figure 16 shows the correlation between diversity and the organization. Based on the
opinions of the ELLs, there is a strong and somewhat predictable connection between diversity
experienced in the broader organization and their view of diversity. The ability to make
predictions regarding this data may fluctuate.

99

Figure 16
Diversity Versus the Organization

Note. r = 0.900; R
2
= 0.811

Sentiments about diversity were mixed in interviews, which is not surprising, with R
2
=
0.811. However, the ELLs’ stories are enlightening and provide an understanding of diversity
and the organization’s work. Interview participants expressed a wide range of opinions about
diversity and the exosystem. For instance, Elena said,
[the company] spends a lot of money on events that make the news. I understand it is
good for stock values, but I wish they would spend that money on us. The price of
everything is going up, but they tell us the budget for raises is still 3%. Tell that to the
100

electric company. And just once, I wish they wouldn’t ask if I can just do self-study when
I ask to take a training class.
Furthermore, Stefan shared that,
They waste a lot of money on PR, but when it comes to training, it’s not in the budget. I
mean, do they really think a ten-dollar class [online] is the same as a 2-day hands-on
workshop? None of us like to make mistakes or waste time. We could move faster if they
would invest in us instead of everyone else.
In relation to these comments, Steve said,
I wish they’d spend a little part of those millions on us. My boss thinks everything we
need is in the LMS. Now they throw it back in our face. You want to work from home,
but you want an in-person class? They don’t understand that training isn’t literally in
person or online. The best class I’ve taken since I finished my degree was with an
instructor who was in Seattle. We had breakout rooms and chat rooms to talk with others
and the teacher when we were working on practice assignments. I don’t want to travel,
but I do want to see a real person.
Four interview participants described company-wide activities and events as vague and broad.
By way of exemplifying this, Elena said,
Usually, there’s nothing particular helpful [to support my career] during these [events]. I
wish we had more communities of practice. I do enjoy meeting others and the chit-chat
[at a COP], but now it’s just become listening to speakers and no time to network or
really focus on learning something.
101

She continued, “but it’s fun to be with my co-workers.” Stefan also mentioned, “I appreciate the
opportunity to volunteer for a cause that is important to me, but I wish they made a big deal out
of getting some days devoted to learning.”
To summarize, diversity at all ecosystem levels significantly impacts an ELL’s workplace
experience. However, the ELL’s team members (mesosystem) made the most significant
contribution to an ELL’s rating of overall diversity. Notably, this connection to the team and DEI
will continue as researchers continue understanding inclusion and equity better.
Analysis of Inclusion in the Exosystem
Respondents’ opinions of inclusion at the company level significantly contributed to their
overall perception of inclusion. However, the organizational influence was not as strong as the
team or department. Figure 17 shows the relationship between overall inclusion and
organizational inclusion. The relationship between overall inclusion and organizational inclusion
is stronger and more predictable than ELLs’ sentiments regarding diversity and the organization
(Figure 16). The data presented in Figure 17 alone does not make much sense, but interview
participants help provide context.

102

Figure 17
Inclusion in the Organization

Note. r = 0.934; R
2
= 0.872

Stefan expressed “frustration” that corporate and organizational efforts tend to focus on
“public appearance.” Relatedly, Sam shared that “there are millions of dollars spent on slick
videos and glossy brochures, but that doesn’t do me any good.” Stella mentioned the company’s
“charitable foundation” spending “a lot” on money organizations in neighborhoods and
communities where the company does business. Two participants mentioned the company’s
philanthropic efforts. Stefan described feeling dismissed as a person by his employer. He
continued, “I think it’s great what the company does. It’s nice to say, I work for [them], but it
would be nice if they spent some of that on employees doing the work. Large corporate-
103

sponsored events like volunteer days were also mentioned as ways to interact with others. Stella
said, “my favorite day of the year is our [company’s service] day. It’s great to meet other people
that I may not work with on something important to me.”
To summarize, five themes emerged from Research Question 1 across all levels of the
study’s adapted ESM. Not including the ELL at the core, teams were most influential in defining
ELLs’ workplace experiences, followed by their supervisor and the organization.
Findings and Results for Research Question 2
Four themes emerged from survey and interview data to guide the study’s
recommendations for building equity. The question asked what suggestions the ELLs had for
employers to create equitable solutions that eliminate barriers to success in the workplace.
Theme 6: Talent Development for ELLs
Survey and interview questions explored the current state of talent development solutions
for ELLs. In-depth interviews (Appendix C, Q6) probed further to understand better their
assessment of the current state of professional development. ELLs’ satisfaction with learning
opportunities (Appendix B, Q12) is shown in Table 16. Although interview participants indicated
that learning opportunities were not focused on them and their ELL identity, only 10% said they
were dissatisfied, and 20% extremely satisfied. The remaining 70% were moderately or slightly
satisfied.

104

Table 16
Satisfaction With Employer Learning Opportunities
Rating % n
Extremely dissatisfied 5 1
Moderately dissatisfied 0 0
Slightly dissatisfied 5 1
Slightly satisfied 20 4
Moderately satisfied 50 10
Extremely satisfied 20 4

Conversely, during interviews, participants found little good to say about corporate
learning management systems. Interview participants acknowledged supervisors as a source of
funding for external training opportunities. ERGs and COPS were identified as vehicles for
workplace learning that was relevant, immediately applicable to solving work problems, and
available during working hours. ERGs and COPs are discussed in more detail with results and
findings associated with Theme 8.
In Table 17, ELLs reported supervisors’ suggestions for learning and development
(Appendix B, Q10).

105

Table 17
Supervisors’ Learning Recommendations for Current and Future Roles
Subject area Current role Future role
% n % n
Technical skills 43 10 22 5
Program/project management 26 6 26 6
Time management 17 4 4 1
Oral presentation skills 13 3 4 1
Other 13 3 9 2
Supervisory skills 9 2 22 5
Writing skills 9 2 13 3
No learning recommendation 9 2 17 4
Total responses 32 27

Note. N = 23. Participants could select multiple subject areas.

Supervisors recommended technical skills training for 43% of ELLs’ current roles and
responsibilities, 26% for program/project management, and 17% recommended time
management. For future roles, program/project management skills were suggested 26% of the
time, followed by technical skills and supervisory skills, with 22% each.
Overall, 70% of ELLs (see Figure 18) indicated that presentation skills were essential. In
stark contrast to 70%, only 13% of supervisors recommended presentation skills training for
ELLs’ current roles, and 4% of supervisors recommended oral presentation skills for a future
role.
When asked for their top three suggestions for ELL-specific training, every interview
respondent mentioned oral presentation skills. Calli, Bridget, Sam, and Zach all said it was
106

“easy” to get technical training but not general professional development topics. Zach described
his department’s presentation skills training as “specific to technical data presentations.” He
continued, “it’s good, but it needs to be more than just my co-workers saying you did great.” As
Stefan said, “my buddies are just glad they don’t have to present…they just are being kind, so I
don’t want to say anything bad when it’s their turn [to present].”
Bridget articulated the sentiment of Calli, Elena, Stella, and Sam when she said, “I don’t
want to practice in front of my boss. It will come up in my review. A safe place to practice is
essential.” Zach said, “I hope our ERGs start meeting in person soon. It’s always a good place to
chat with others [in English] and not worry about being proper if I stumble over my words.”
Theme 7: 70% of ELLs Say Oral Presentation Skills Are Essential for Success
Oral presentation skills are defined as the ability to speak and verbally present
information in a formal group setting, on a specific topic, for a given time (Barret & Liu, 2019).
Formal presentations require different skills than casual, interactive speech (Brown, 1981). A
presentation requires paralinguistic vocal features, gestures, and facial expressions to enhance
content delivery. These features are not a natural part of daily speech (Nation & Newton, 2020).
Oral presentation skills do not include a person’s technical skills or ability to prepare a written
report for a presentation (i.e., PowerPoint). As mentioned previously, 70% of survey respondents
felt that presentation skills were extremely important to their career advancement and promotion.
Despite this, only 4% of supervisors (Table 17) recommended presentation skills for a future
role.

107

Figure 18
How Necessary Are Oral Presentation Skills to Advance Your Career and Earn a Promotion?

Note. N = 20

Participants’ opinions are supported in the literature. Kim et al. (2019) found that non-
native speakers (NNS) who delivered the same scripted speech as native speakers were
significantly less likely to be recommended for middle-management positions. For ELL/NNS
employees, listeners evaluated the speaker’s overall competence based on the speaker’s linguistic
skill, regardless of their ability (Coupland & Bishop, 2007). This evaluation leads to
discrimination and fewer career opportunities (Huang et al., 2013; Hosada & Stone-Romero,
2010; Russo et al., 2017). In addition to barriers to inclusion and advancement, language
diversity elicited more subtle forms of discrimination and profiling at work when compared with
other diversity attributes (Baugh, 2017; Bent & Bradlow, 2003; Russo et al., 2017). Despite
ELLs’ sentiments and the supporting literature, there was a disconnect between supervisors’ and
ELLs’ opinions (Appendix B, Q14) about the need for presentation skills training to succeed.
108

Although all interview participants wanted to improve their presentation skills, Table 18
survey data shows mixed results, with 20% of ELLs extremely satisfied with their oral
presentation skills and 50% only moderately satisfied. Only 5% were extremely dissatisfied with
their oral presentation skills, and the rest were slightly satisfied or slightly dissatisfied.
Elena shared, “now that I’m in product management, I have been presenting a lot more. I
don’t always have time to practice, but when I record my presentations, I can go back later and
get very practical feedback that helps right away. As Stefan succinctly said, “Doesn’t everyone
dread presentations? There’s always room for improvement.”

Table 18
Satisfaction With Oral Presentation Skills
Rating % n
Extremely dissatisfied 5 1
Moderately dissatisfied 0 0
Slightly dissatisfied 5 1
Slightly satisfied 20 4
Moderately satisfied 50 10
Extremely satisfied 20 4

Note. N = 20

109

Table 19 looks specifically at learning opportunities employers provided for oral
presentation skills (Appendix B, Q14). ELLs’ opinions were less favorable than overall
satisfaction with learning opportunities. In comparison, 70% of ELLs were moderately or
extremely satisfied with overall learning opportunities (Table 16).

Table 19
Learning Opportunities for Oral Presentation Skills
Rating % n
Extremely dissatisfied 10 2
Moderately dissatisfied 5 1
Slightly dissatisfied 25 5
Slightly satisfied 10 2
Moderately satisfied 45 9
Extremely satisfied 5 1

Note. N = 20

110

For oral presentation skills, only 5% of ELLs were extremely satisfied with their
employer's learning opportunities, and 45% were moderately satisfied with learning
opportunities. The remaining 50% were slightly satisfied or dissatisfied with learning
opportunities for oral presentation skills.
Interview participants identified no learning opportunities geared explicitly to the needs
of ELLs. Given this fact, perhaps it is not surprising that the survey data regarding presentation
skills shows lower ratings than ratings for overall general opportunities provided by the
employer. Tables 20 and 21 show language learning methods ELLs use outside of work. Table
20 ranks responses by the number of individuals using that method. Table 21 ranks the learning
methods by the estimated number of learning hours per method.

111

Table 20
Individual Professional Development Methods Ranked by Percent Utilized
Learning method
(hours/week)
<1

(A)
%
1–2

(B)
%
3–5

(C)
%
5+

(D)
%
Do not
use
(E)
%
Participants per
method
(F)
n
Percent
utilized

(F/n)
Read a book,
magazine, or
other
publications

25.0 25.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 20 91
Watching
television
shows, movies,
or cartoons

5.3 15.8 31.6 36.8 10.5 19 86
Listen to the radio
or podcasts
(songs or
spoken content)

11.1 38.9 33.3 16.7 0.0 18 82
Talk out loud to
yourself
11.8 5.9 17.7 23.5 41.2 17 77
Play video games 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3 87.4 16 73
Attend classes
(in-person or
online)

12.5 18.8 6.25 0.0 62.5 16 73
Study vocabulary
and grammar

35.7 28.6 7.14 0.0 28.6 14 64
Other 0.0 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 7 32

Note. N = 22. Survey respondents could select multiple methods regarding what skill
development opportunities, if any, they engage with outside work to practice their English skills
(Appendix B, Q18). Learning methods were adapted from “9 Ways to Learn English at Home in
Your Pajamas” (Handari, 2021).
112

Table 21
Individual Professional Development Methods Ranked by Hours Utilized
Learning method Estimated average hours Participants

Hours per
method
(weighted)
Rank
0.5 1.5 4.0 7.0 0.0
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G)
Watching
television
shows, movies,
or cartoons

0.5 4.5 24.0 48.9 0.0 19 15.6
1
Listen to the radio
or podcasts
(songs or
spoken content)

1.0 10.5 24.0 21.0 0.0 18 11.3 2
Read a book,
magazine, or
other
publications

2.5 7.5 16.0 28.0 0.0 20 10.8 3
Talk out loud to
yourself

1.0 1.5 12.0 28.0 0.0 17 8.5 4
Other

0.0 0.0 1.0 14.0 0.0 7 3.6 5
Study vocabulary
and grammar

2.5 6.0 4.0 0 0.0 14 2.5 6
Play video games

0.0 0.0 4.0 7.0 0.0 16 2.2 7
Attend classes
(in-person or
online)
1.0 4.5 4.0 0 0.0 16 1.9 8

Note. N = 22.

Ranked by hours, ELLs indicated that watching TV, movies, or cartoons was their first
choice for developing language skills, followed by listening to the radio or podcasts. Reading
113

and talking aloud with yourself were third and fourth. All other methods were used less than four
hours per week, while the top four were used 8 or more hours per week. Regarding the premise
that ELLs want to succeed (Theme 2), it seems clear that ELLs engage in activities that support
their success.
Theme 8: Employee Resource Groups and Communities of Practice
From survey data, 50% of ELLs participated in ERGs (Table 22), and 30% participated in
COPs (Table 23). Tables 24 and 25 list the ERG and COP names mentioned by interview
participants.

Table 22
Employee Resource Group (ERG) Participation Rates
One ERG More than 1 ERG No
25% 25% 50%

Note. N = 20

114

Employee Resource Groups
ERG members were more than immediate co-workers on the team or in the same
department. Bridget described how helpful the “seasoned” ERG was when dealing with elderly
parents and young children, particularly during COVID-19. In particular, she appreciated ERG
members’ support. Stefan described how the veteran’s ERG helped him transition to corporate
America following a 20+ year military career. Two participants said the ERG was a “safe space”
to discuss important work or personal matters they might not want to share with a supervisor or
co-workers. Like these examples, ELLs said they would benefit from an ERG that specifically
brings together employees around language diversity.
Zach was “challenged by daycare.” Stella mentioned her ERG/COP participation was
“limited because I was supporting remote schooling for my children. My husband works in the
hospital. He couldn’t do it.” During the pandemic, Bridget’s stated goal was “to finish my work
in the least amount of time to focus on family,” a sentiment expressed in various ways in every
interview. As Calli said, “I’m encouraged that COVID-19 issues are waning. I’m hopeful I can
be more active in our ERG and COP.”
While not the focus of the study, at some point, every interview participant mentioned the
workplace challenges encountered since the onset of COVID-19 in March 2020, when most
organizations abruptly moved to work-from-home arrangements. All were hopeful they could
network and interact on a more informal basis at work as COVID became less of a threat. As
Elena said, ERGS and COPs happen during regular business hours, not constrained by “life
situations outside work.”
Half of the survey participants belonged to an ERG. In contrast, to survey participants,
six of the seven interview participants belong to an ERG and considered the time well spent and
115

fun, even if it meant extending their workday to complete their work assignments. This runs
contrary to the strong desire of interview participants to participate in ERGs and COPs. Perhaps
lower participation rates among survey participants were skewed by COVID-related factors.
Bridget, Calli, and Stephan mentioned that engagement opportunities had been
significantly curtailed due to the remote nature of work during the pandemic. Stephan shared,
“We have a virtual ERG for [software] users, but it’s not the same as getting together in person.
When the meeting organizer ends the session, so is our connection to everyone. There’s no time
for an informal discussion.” So, while the essential elements of an ERG may still exist,
participation has declined, meetings happen less often, and meeting content is highly structured.
Bridget, Elena, and Zach mentioned they found new jobs within their company from ERG
participation. Elena said,
I needed a change. I was bored. [It’s] a good company and we’re so big, I just moved to a
[different] department. They are doing interesting work and also allowed me to use new
skills I learned in a training class.
ERGs and COPS are valuable to ELLs, and the literature affirms that groups organized around
social identity successfully improve diversity (Scott-Pruitt et al., 2018). Therefore, ERGs and
COPs are arguably viable and effective approaches to building equity. The interview participants
identified several ERGs (the exact names have been changed to maintain the organization's
confidentiality), which are listed in Table 24.

116

Table 23
Employee Resource Groups Mentioned by ELLs
Employee resource group Purpose
LGBTQIA+ For individuals who identify as LGBTQIA+ and their allies
“Seasoned” Professionals Focused on dealing with issues of aging parents at home
Black Engineers Network The group is being expanded to include all people of color
Latinx/Hispanic Bringing together Hispanic and Latinx professionals
Young Professionals Young is in the first 5–10 years of their career
Veterans Network Retired military and active duty military spouses
Women’s Network Focuses on women’s issues, but men are welcome to join

Note. The ERG names listed in Table 23 are thematic/generic examples to protect the study
participants’ and organizations’ identities.

Communities of Practice
A sense of community, power, and connection influenced ELLs’ program participation
(Gumusluoglu et al., 2013). Authentic learning increases workers’ motivation and decreases their
anxiety. Adult learning within the work context must also be relevant and related to the work
(Ewert, 2014; Knowles et al., 2020). ELLs were more motivated to learn in a cohort of peers in
their workplace (King & Juniper, 2017). As learning increased, workers’ motivation and anxiety
decreased.

117

Table 24
Community of Practice (COP) Participation Rates
One COP More than 1 COP No
20% 10% 70%

Note. N = 20

Sharing or using new skills increased the commitment of ELLs to the organization. They
were interested in enhancing job security and respect from co-workers (and family) and
appreciated the safe space COPs created and a sense of belonging (Lehtonen, 2017). COPs are
found in the mesosystem in this study’s adapted ESM, which is the area where most interactions
between ELLs and others in the organization occur. Overall, 20% of ELLs participated in one
COP, 10% participated in more than one, and 70% of ELLs did not participate in a COP
Organizations use different names for COPs. The names in Table 25 are thematic
examples designed to protect the participants’ and organizations’ identities. With few exceptions,
COPs mentioned by ELLs bring together practitioners and subject matter experts (SMEs) from
the entire company. Interview participants valued COPs, with Stefan describing a community of
practice as a way to do “[practical] applied learning.” Furthermore, Stella said that the COP
helps move one beyond “formal training,” and Stefan described the ERG as “valuable education
not found in a manual or textbook.”

118

Table 25
Communities of Practice Mentioned by ELLs
Community of practice Purpose
Agile/project management An enterprise “center of excellence” for project managers
Artificial intelligence Training and knowledge sharing for artificial intelligence
Book club Focused on leadership and non-technical topics
Change management Driving digital transformation and process optimization
Machine learning Training and knowledge sharing for machine learning
Programming languages R, C++, Python, Azure, Teradata

Calli and Stefan belong to company-sponsored COPs for agile project management,
while Elena, Sam, and Zach belong to a data science COP. Zach also participated in a “book
club.” He explained, “I want to become a team leader and eventually a manager. Most of my
schooling has been about computers, so this is a chance to learn more about people skills.”
Focused on leadership development sponsored by his department, Zach also mentioned he had
not been able to “secure a seat” in the corporate university's “new supervisor training.”
Bridget, Calli, and Stephan had previously participated in Toastmasters. Calli stated, “I
found comparing my performance to English first speakers is frustrating and discouraging. What
is the point? It just makes me feel worse. I’m never going to be as good as they are.” Stephan
explained, “There is nothing wrong with it, but I need more practice than I can get once a
month.” In addition, Zach shared, “Toastmasters isn’t an ERG, but it is skilled based. Practice is
limited, so I’ve started using other ways to improve my language skills.”
119

Zach shared that his department had created a “presentation skills program specifically
for technical presentations,” but it was not focused on ELLs. “I don’t need to go back to the
office every day to do my job,” said Sam,
but it would be worth it if we could have in-person events. Giving presentations in a safe
space was the best. Our [leader] wasn’t my direct supervisor and made it clear that
anything we did in our practice sessions was not a part of anyone’s formal annual review.
It seems reasonable to recommend that organizations be intentional in creating institutional
systems (equity) for ELLs by creating ERGs and COPs. This finding is based on survey and
interview data gathered from ELLs in this study and supported by the literature.
Analysis of Equity in the Exosystem
Figure 19 shows ELLs’ rating of equity at the organizational level. Enterprise-wide
systems and processes are pervasive but rarely flexible. Two examples are: (a) corporate HR
policies and procedures for career advancement and promotion opportunities, and (b) the LMS in
the exosystem. An LMS provides a single point of entry for all employees to access a corporate
training catalog. Learning subjects are primarily delivered via computer-based training, with no
support or interaction with others, such as team members, supervisors, or SMEs.
Catalog content is usually purchased from multiple external vendors. Industry-specific
content may be purchased externally or developed internally. Company-specific training
regarding the organization’s products and services may also be available and is typically
developed in-house or by contracting training from external suppliers to develop content. An
LMS can be a valuable resource. However, the content is rarely personalized to meet the
individuals’ specific needs and is typically designed to facilitate, track, and report on the
organization’s mandatory training obligations.
120

Figure 19
Equity and the Company/Organization

Note. r = 0.921; R
2
= 0.849

The correlation (r) between equity and the organization is strong and positive, but the line
of best fit (R
2
) demonstrates substantial variability in responses. During interviews, Sam
described his company’s LMS as “humongous.” “I don’t know who runs it, but our LMS is all
about quantity. There isn’t much useful in there for me.” Calli also revealed that, “we’re told our
LMS has everything, but it’s all generic and hard to search. It’s easier just to google if I want to
figure something out.” Stephan, Calli, and Bridget shared that their companies provide access to
learning content through Udemy and LinkedIn Learning, in addition to their respective corporate
121

learning management systems. Sam also mentioned access to Udemy and described it as
“basically crowd-sourced technical learning, and other stuff that isn’t as important to me.” When
asked about corporate learning, Stella said,
I only use the LMS for our compliance training, and half the time, it doesn’t even
remember I took the training. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to re-take a
training and when I try to sign-up for an in-person class, it’s always full.
Theme 9: ELLs Use and Value Artificial Intelligence
Stephan, Bridget, and Zach worked directly with AI in their day-to-day responsibilities.
Together with Sam, they indicated they were pursuing training, certification, or an advanced
degree focused on data analytics, emphasizing AI and machine learning (ML). Only interview
questions inquired about participants’ use of AI in their job. All participants were familiar with
MALL, and a few programs, including ORAI, Rosetta Stone, and Duolingo, were mentioned.
Grammarly, a writing support tool, was also mentioned. These examples were described as
engaging and straightforward. Sam shared, “I feel like I’m not wasting my time, getting
something I don’t need. [It delivers] what I need quickly.”
Stella expressed, “I don’t want to take training I don’t need, just to get what I need. And
it’s available 24/7, meaning I can use it for more than work.” Relatedly, Zach stated,
Built-in AI lets the software help me whether I’m writing for work or school. I can
change the rules that are appropriate to the purpose [of my writing]. And don’t tell
anyone, but it’s fun. I’m kidding, but there’s nothing better than fixing my mistakes and
getting cute little comments. And every so often, I get emails that tell me how many
words I’ve typed, how I compare to other users, and how my emails sound. It pleases me
122

when it tells me my words are friendly and confident. I can even tell Grammarly how I
want to sound [writing tone] and check for. It’s way better than spellcheck.
These programs exemplify meeting learners where they are (Knowles et al., 2020). They provide
scaffolding (Kukulaska-Hulme & Pegrum, 2018; Vygotsky, 1978) that enables learners to
achieve previously difficult or unattainable goals and make learning fun and immediate
(Krashen, 1982; MacIntyre et al., 2019; Maley, 2020; O’Bryan et al., 2019).
MALL with AI, as described by the study’s ELLs, is bringing sound pedagogical
approaches to language learning (Seau et al., 2018) and putting equity in their hands. As
discussed in the literature review, AI enjoys the presumption of being unbiased, and based on
Figure 20, a sense of transparency is very important to ELLs. The literature also states that
transparency reduces unconscious bias in the organization (Bocsik, 2022).

123

Figure 20
Equity and Transparency

Note. r = 0.939; R
2
= 0.883

ELLs’ opinions of overall equity were heavily influenced by transparent processes
(Appendix B, Q26). After the team and inclusion, transparency and equity were the second-
largest contributors to overall DEI.
Approaches to Equity
It is important at this point to consider what suggestions ELLs identified for employers to
create equitable solutions that eliminate barriers to success in the workplace. To summarize these
recommendations, the ELLs’ ideas for equity are placed in the study’s adapted ESM. From the
124

closest to the furthest distance from the ELL, they are: (a) the supervisor in the microsystem, (b)
the team/department and co-worker interactions in the mesosystem, and (c) the corporate LMS in
the exosystem.
In the microsystem, research participants indicated that supervisors provide unique
opportunities based on employee request(s). The supervisor enables these interventions by
appropriating the budget to fund one or many training requests, conferences, or workshop
attendance. While survey data showed that supervisors affect job satisfaction and generally
produce favorable DEI ratings, interview participants’ experiences were highly variable. Given
the unique relationship between each ELL and their supervisor, consistently and repeatedly
replicating these approaches to equity is virtually impossible. Therefore, based on the interview,
survey data, and the definition of equity (Bensimon et al., 2016), solutions in the microsystem
were not considered in the final recommendations of this study.
Learning management systems (LMS) were considered an idea for building equity in the
exosystem. However, the LMS is the epitome of a homogeneous training experience, efficiently
delivering all employees the same offerings for professional development. An LMS is frequently
used to deliver mandatory training to large groups of people when scalable, repeatable, and
consistent processes are needed, but it does not deliver equitable experiences (Horvat et al.,
2015). Therefore, due to the inflexible nature of an LMS and most corporate learning programs,
they are eliminated from further consideration as a way to build equity for ELLs.
Supported by literature and findings from the survey data and reinforced by interview
participants, Chapter Five’s recommendations focus on equity solutions that can consistently be
provided in the mesosystem. In survey data, the ELLs’ team, representing the mesosystem, made
the most significant contribution to an ELL’s rating of overall equity.
125

Interview participants shared many examples of positive experiences and benefits of
participating in ERGs and COPs. Therefore, the mesosystem systematically provides the best
opportunity for building equitable opportunities where interactions happen between individuals
and others in their environment in a systematic approach. In our adapted ESM, this space
includes ERGs, COPs, and computer-assisted language learning. Each approach provides
opportunities to adapt and scaffold the learning experience to an ELL’s specific needs.
ERGs and COPs are prevalent in Fortune 500 companies, with 50% of survey
respondents revealing they participated in one or more ERGs. Furthermore, 30% of survey
respondents participated in COPs. All interview participants were familiar with ERGs and COPs
in their organizations, even if they did not actively participate.
Summary of Results and Findings
The literature provides approaches to diversity and inclusion responsive to changing
demographics of race, gender, and ethnicity (Block & Noumair, 2015; Cox, 1991; Dobbin &
Kalev, 2016; Hays-Thomas, 2016; Heisler & Bandow, 2018; Holvino, 2008; Kerekes, 2004;
Thomas, 1991). There is literature about language acquisition for students, language skills for
workplace-specific needs like medical and construction industries, or professionals with limited
English proficiency (Ananyeva, 2013; Atkinson, 2014; Brooks, 2009; Duff et al., 2002; Duval-
Couetil & Mikulecky, 2011; Elder et al., 2012; Ewert, 2014; Finn, 2011; Gheriani, 2019; Guth,
1993; Hayes, 1989; Housel, 2019; Krashen, 1982; Luo, 2014; Maley, 2020; O’Brien, 2006;
Poyhonen et al., 2018; Skutnabb, 1989). However, what is significantly lacking is any indication
of how organizations can create equity for ELLs.
Some research on ELL professional development needs is emerging to support highly
skilled professionals (Beliz et al., 2019; Capelli, 2015; Henderson & Barker, 2018). However,
126

interview participants indicated that HR and learning and development professionals equate large
quantities of training programs with quality and fairness (i.e., equity). Existing equity programs,
primarily ERGs, identified by study participants, were organized based on age, gender, race,
ethnicity, sexual orientation, veteran status, and disabilities, not language. While these programs
may provide tangential learning opportunities, it is not directly in response to the needs of ELLs.
Perhaps it is not surprising that organizations are not identifying ELLs as vital
contributors to organizational performance. Organizations cannot identify them, and interview
participants did not identify any resources their employer offered focusing explicitly on ELLs’
needs. In an informal discussion with a group of 20 HR professionals, no one indicated to me
that their organization systematically identified ELLs. Several suggested that demographics are
collected during the hiring process, but language is not a data element captured. Compounding
the void, most hiring data does not follow the employee after the initial hire.
Although each level of the ESM has a role in shaping ELLs workplace experience, the
recommendations for building equity are placed in the mesosystem. Three possibilities for
building equity emerged throughout the interviews. ERGs, COPs, and mobile learning with AI
were identified as ways to deliver professional development that would meet ELLs “where they
are” (Knowles et al., 2020). All three approaches offer scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978) supporting
learning, including learning from more knowledgeable others. Cunningham Florez (1998) noted
that leveraging social identity—i.e., how a person identifies and understands themselves relative
to others and their environment (Ullman, 1997)—makes it easier for ELLs to acquire language.
Principles of fun, enjoyable, appropriate learning and positive psychology (Krashen, 1982;
Lehtonen, 2017; Maley, 2020) also guide the recommendations for equitable interventions that
seem likely to succeed, as presented in Chapter Five.
127

Chapter Five: Recommendations for Practice
Based on the results and findings presented in Chapter Four, this chapter provides
recommendations and guidance for building ELL equity. The recommendations for practice can
guide organizations in creating a better workplace experience for ELLs. Each recommendation is
valuable, but collectively, they will create synergies, adding value that cannot be measured in
cost-benefit analyses. The recommendations for building equity that support ELLs are as
follows.
1. Create a Community of Practice for ELLs and presentation skills.
2. Provide 24/7 presentation skills coaching via mobile devices with MALL-AI.
3. Create Employee Resource Groups for ELLs.
4. Create demographic data elements to identify ELLs.
5. Value ELLs as vital contributors to organizational performance and profitability.
Each recommendation is supported by principles discussed in the literature, with specific
ideas generated from this study’s survey results and interview findings.
The chapter begins with a discussion of equitable solutions. It closes with a discussion of
the barriers that may limit an organization from fully realizing a goal for language diversity and
inclusion and possible areas for research. In conclusion, the researcher reflects on the potential
value of this study for ELLs and organizations facing the challenges of language diversity.
Discussion of the Recommendations
The results and findings of this study are aligned with its conceptual framework. The
framework served as a lens that guided this research and its recommendations. Bronfenbrenner’s
(1999) ESM, scaffolding, and the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1934, 2012) and
positive psychology (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Krashen, 1982; Lehtonen, 2017; Maley, 2020)
128

supported the conceptual framework. Understanding participants’ perspectives, individually and
collectively, relative to each of these theories has informed the study’s recommendations.
The literature identified several areas to consider when building equity and improving the
employee experience: (a) improving organizational approaches to diversity, (b) language
learning technology, (c) the supervisory relationship, and (d) organizational culture. In the study
data, when each component of DEI was evaluated against the ELLs’ ratings of: (a) job
satisfaction, (b) supervisor satisfaction, and (c) e-NPS, all measures were closely connected to
the respondent’s favorable view of their organization. However, three ideas resonated during
participant interviews focused on building workplace equity for ELLs. Sound pedagogical
approaches also support these ideas, and cost-benefit analyses highlight favorable economic
benefits that will appeal to profit-driven businesses.
Participants also identified learning and language support technologies that enhance their
verbal (and written) fluency as essential tools for success. This idea, supported by the literature
and participants’ inputs, directly addresses the problem and challenge of building equity for
ELLs. They desire more opportunities to interact with team members, peers, and potential
mentors in COPs and ERGs.
Language is a forgotten factor in managing large multinational organizations (Marschan
et al., 1997), and Sloman and Fernback (2018) stated that people tend to be biased. Based on
personal experience, people unconsciously assume they know facts. While it is not entirely clear
why this is, based on a person’s social knowledge (Sloman & Fernbach), there is a tendency to
overestimate what is known and underestimate what is unknown.
Organizations pay a linguistic penalty (Roberts, 2010) for ineffectively using ELLs’ skills
and talents in the new globalized economy (Moore, 1999). Complex linguistic and technical
129

environments negatively affect individual and organizational performance (Gluszek & Dovidio,
2010; Lev-Ari & Keysar, 2010), while an adaptive organizational culture (Costanza et al., 2015;
Schneider et al., 1996) can enhance inclusion, creativity, and innovation (Alper et al., 2012;
Goodman, 2017). It should also be noted that, likewise, both native and non-native speakers pay
a linguistic penalty for an organization’s lack of action. Both sides experience stress and anxiety
(Kim et al., 2019; Stubbe, 2017). Therefore, adapting to and addressing ELLs' challenges will
improve performance, reduce stress for everyone, and ultimately benefit the organization’s
bottom line.
Historically, organizations’ efforts to increase diversity have focused on increasing
representation and building programs based on traditional demographic variables like age, race,
ethnicity, and gender. Fortune 500 companies are driven primarily by profit, so the challenge is
for human resources and diversity professionals to quantify employee behaviors into monetary
value. Competing in the global economy means U.S. employers have an increased need for
skilled labor in engineering and technology (Carnevale et al., 2018; King & Juniper, 2017).
Developing an inclusive, multi-cultural organization means integrating diverse perspectives,
identities, cultures, and styles (Cox, 1991; Holvino, 2008) into an organization’s work and
systems. If not fairly evaluated, other projects may seem more profitable (Hays-Thomas, 2017)
when organizations have many competing demands for resources. However, ELLs represent a
disproportionate share of KPIs when measuring role clarity, medical errors, construction-site
safety, conflict, absenteeism, and turnover (Devin et al., 2010; Gumusluoglu et al., 2013;
Kalarao, 2004; Madera et al., 2014). For ease of discussion, this chapter highlights the potential
monetary impact of implementing recommendations using a cost-benefit analysis of employee
turnover.
130

Recommendations for Building Equity
This section details the study’s recommendations. Five recommendations were
determined by evaluating the literature, the study’s survey data, and suggestions for equity
provided by interview participants. The first three recommendations provide direct equitable
support to ELLs and include a cost-benefit analysis. The remaining two recommendations
address organizational barriers that may impede (a) the organization’s understanding of the
number of ELLs in their workplace; (b) the bottom-line cost organizations incur by doing
nothing to support ELLs, in the form of turnover and absenteeism; and (c) the value ELLs bring
to the organization by improving competitiveness in the global marketing, and therefore
increasing profitability.
Development does not occur in a vacuum, and context matters (Bronfenbrenner, 1979,
2005; Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky also believed language influences and shapes thoughts, more
than just a way to label experiences. Bronfenbrenner and Vygotsky assert that the relationship
between the individual and their setting comprises reciprocal and two-directional interactions.
Using the study’s adapted ESM (Bronfenbrenner; Kasbi & Elahi Shivran, 2017), the mesosystem
is the primary place where these interactions occur. Theme 3 in Chapter Four demonstrates that
ELLs’ team influences their workplace experience more than any other factor measured in this
study. Therefore, the study’s interventions are proposed within the workplace mesosystem.
An ecological understanding of foreign language speaking (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 2005;
Kasbi & Elahi Shirvan, 2017) also supports the appropriateness of the study’s recommendation.
Another important consideration was Vygotsky’s (1978) principles for Sociocultural Learning
Theory (SCT) and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The concept of the ZPD refers to
supporting a person so they can do something they cannot do without that support.
131

A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) summary accompanies the first three recommendations.
The CBA for each recommendation uses a methodology outlined by Levin et al. (2018). The
detailed cost-benefit analysis scenarios are included in Appendix D. In addition to the
organizational financial gains, employees desire better language skills for job duties and life
skills, like understanding healthcare benefits or helping their children with homework (Duff et
al., 2002). An ELL’s first priority is to succeed (Finn, 2011; Hayes, 1989).
Finally, additional recommendations are provided that the researcher deems necessary for
organizations to identify ELLs, implement equity that supports ELLs, and track performance
improvements (or deficiencies). These are as follows:
Recommendation 1: Communities of Practice
Organizations should create a COP focused on presentation skills for ELLs. COPs
typically gather employees around a shared skill or topic of interest. Interview respondents
indicated that a COP focused on oral presentation skills would be welcomed rather than current
standardized approaches that do not acknowledge their identity, and everyone desired an
opportunity to improve their speaking skills in a “safe” space. A COP can provide culturally
responsive learning for ELLs (Ananyeva, 2013; Housel, 2019), which has shown potential by
appealing to their needs for inclusion and adaptability. Implementing a COP for ELLs at the
organizational level by a corporate L&D team will deliver a more consistent experience than
current grass-roots efforts. Learning with their co-workers (King & Juniper, 2017), ELLs’
learning and motivation increased, and anxiety decreased. Moreover, ELLs will spend more time
learning in a group of peers. Merging sound pedagogical learning constructs of MALL with AI
(Johnson et al., 2015) and social identity (Cunningham Florez, 1998; Teboul & Yoon, 2019;
Ullman, 1997) will provide a significant opportunity for ELLs.
132

Professional learning communities are particularly effective in addressing unmet needs
when formalized professional development opportunities do not exist (Sargent & Hannum,
2009). The success of professional learning communities depends on institutional support.
Beyond infrastructure for communications and meeting space, providing ELLs with dedicated
time to collaborate in forums that support their learning needs is necessary. Tables 26 and 27
provide a cost-benefit analysis for a COP focused on oral presentation skills.

Table 26
Cost-Benefit Analysis: COP for ELLs Focused on Oral Presentation Skills
Year Costs Benefits Benefits–costs
0 3,999 0 0
1 90,537 587,100 607,500
2 93,134 639,113 639,113
3 95,808 686,944 686,944
Total 283,478 1,913,933 1,933,556

133

Table 27
Recommendation 1: Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
Net present value
of costs
Net present value
of benefits
Benefits–costs Benefit-to-cost
ratio
238,436 1,718,692 1,480,256 7.21

Note. Detailed costs and benefits are provided in Appendix D.

Recommendation 1 illustrates the power of introducing MALL to 100 people in a safe
space with other ELLs. The benefit is based on reduced conflict (two hours per ERG member per
week). ORAI software was selected for cost estimates as it was known to some interview
participants and the researcher. In Year 1, turnover is expected to decrease by 10% and in each
subsequent year. Conflict will decrease by 5% in Year 1 and the following years (Dana, 2001).
Participants’ suggestions for equity and the literature support the recommendation for
organizations to invest in and implement ERGs introducing MALL with AI for oral presentation
skills. Providing real-time formative feedback (Shute, 2008) desired by participants creates the
safety ELLs are looking for and builds confidence and curiosity. Beyond basic proficiency in
grammar and vocabulary, ELLs must understand the subtle semantics of English (O’Brien,
2006). Language learning is most effective when aligned with ELLs’ lived experiences
(Bloomaert & Backus, 2013). Leveraging MALL with AI will support greater job satisfaction
and creativity, faster adaptation, and lower turnover (Heen & Stone, 2014). Using AI creates
objective feedback that eliminates or diminishes triggers that threaten identity or relationships
(“Employee Training,” 2020). From the learners’ perspective, mobile learning with AI supports
their identity. Devices are an extension of the self (Johnson et al., 2015), and the research found
134

that L2 professionals preferred mobile learning with AI and performed better than those
receiving face-to-face learning (Golonka et al., 2014; Refat et al., 2020; U.S. Department of
Education, 2009). For older learners, online learning had a statistically positive influence (p <
.05) on professionals. Increased learning time and the availability of additional learning content
were significant factors.
MALL-AI is an intelligent tutor (Dodigovic, 2005) that focuses on critical tasks
necessary for language fluency. It provides a personalized experience that supports and
encourages learners as they demonstrate the target behavior(s). Implementing MALL-AI as the
digital scaffolding (Kukulaska-Hulme & Pegrum, 2018) provides many benefits from an
organization’s point of view, including cost-affordable and scalable solutions. An ERG
(Recommendation 1) and MALL-AI (Recommendation 2) are individually beneficial, with an
ROI of 2.17 and 2.12, respectively. However, it should be noted that the cost-benefit analysis for
the COP with MALL-AI is the best solution when an organization must allocate scarce
resources.
Recommendation 2: Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
Study data and the literature suggest that MALL-AI is a promising approach to equity
(Johnson, 2015; Kukulaska-Hulme & Pegrum, 2018; Meacham, 2021; U.S. Department of
Education, 2009). Recall that 70% of survey respondents indicated that oral presentation skills
were important to attain their goals. All seven interview participants indicated a desire to
improve their presentation skills. Unfortunately, part of the challenge to implementing this
study’s recommendations is simply getting solutions connected to ELLs when organizations
rarely have demographic data identifying them.
135

Interview participants felt that approaching equity with a technology solution was
appropriate and appealing, given the connection to their work in technology roles. The literature
review supports the efficacy of CALL and MALL (Johnson et al., 2015). Mobile learning
supports an individual’s development and enhances prior knowledge with opportunities for
personalization using artificial intelligence (AI). Providing participants with a way to interact,
respond, record, and share learning is essential. The U.S. Department of Education (May 2009)
also found upon analyzing over 1,000 empirical studies that adult online learners performed
better than those receiving face-to-face instruction.
While AI can be fraught with misuse and unintended consequences or bias (Meacham,
2021), it has excellent potential to create equity for ELLs by creating a digital scaffold
(Kukulaska-Hulme & Pegrum, 2018). Beyond basic proficiency in grammar and vocabulary,
ELLs must understand the subtle semantics of English (O’Brien, 2006), and language learning is
most effective when aligned with their lived experiences, including their work (Bloomaert &
Backus, 2013).
Organizations maintain learning management systems that typically offer thousands of
learning programs. These programs represent in-person, instructor-led training and self-paced
computer-based training that excel at providing equal access for all. All interview participants
indicated that opportunities for in-person training were limited, and the LMS was primarily a
resource for the one-way delivery of learning materials.
Using AI to address oral presentation skills for ELLs (Golonka, 2014) enables real-time
coaching, fully integrating the experience from assessment to lesson planning and activities
unique to each person. Thus, Vygotsky’s (1934, 2012) ZPD can be brought to life.
136

One example of a contextually responsive tool developed by a team of ELLs is ORAI.
ORAI is an oral (OR) presentation skill coach that uses AI. The program evaluates learners in
five areas: energy, confidence, eye contact, pace, and fillers. Once the initial assessment is
complete, ORAI provides feedback and adapts lessons as learners progress through practice
scenarios. Participants can use assessments, practice drills already created in ORAI, or record
conversations and presentations using an Android or iOS device to analyze verbal skills in real-
world situations 24/7.
Tables 28 and 29 show the CBA for Recommendation 2. The cash outlay for this scenario
is $3,999 in Year 0. All other dollar amounts are calculated based on the average hourly rate
($72.12) for an entry-level technical professional in a 100-person cohort group. The ongoing cost
in Years 1–3 is 1 hour per week for 48 weeks during the employee’s regular working hours, to be
devoted to presentation skill lessons and practice. Inflation is calculated at 3% per annum.
Reducing turnover by 10% year-over-year seems plausible. Gallup estimates that the cost
of replacing an employee is at least 1 year’s salary (McFeely & Wigert, 2019). This calculation
only refers to the annual base salary, not fringe benefits and overheads. It is assumed that
existing personnel can support the software acquisition, so there is no organizational cost other
than the licensing fee. Estimates vary, but a modest 5% decrease (two hours per person, per
week) in conflict (Dana Mediation Institute) can yield significant gains in productivity.

137

Table 28
Cost-Benefit Analysis: MALL-AI for Presentation Skills
Year Costs Benefits Benefits–costs
0 3,999 -0-

1 47,268 303,750 256,482
2 48,556 319,556 270,990
3 49,903 343,472 293,569
Total 149,734 966,778 817,041

Table 29
Recommendation 2: Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
Net present value
of costs
Net present value
of benefits
Benefits–costs Benefit-to-cost
ratio
126,147 859,346 733,200 6.81

Note. Detailed costs and benefits are provided in Appendix D.

138

The benefit/cost ratio for Recommendation 2 is 2.12. The analysis shows the impact of
introducing mobile-assisted language learning with AI (MALL-AI) for 100 people. In this case,
the benefit is based on reduced conflict (2 hours per person, per week). However, it is expected
that only 10% of ELLs will persist due to a lack of group engagement. Software must be
purchased in Year 0 and renewed annually. In Years 1 and beyond, turnover is expected to
decrease by 10%, and conflict will decrease by 5% (Dana Mediation Institute).
The company is expected to enjoy real-time savings from improvements realized from
the targeted ELL intervention. Giving ELLs access to MALL-AI provides them with a resource
immediately accessible at work and home (Kukaska-Hulme & Pegrum, 2018). A MALL-AI
platform creates digital scaffolding and an intelligent tutor (Dodigovic, 2005), focusing an
individual on critical tasks necessary for language fluency. AI supports the learner’s focus,
demonstrates the target behavior(s), and is presumed to be unbiased. Scaffolding in the ZPD
(Vygotsky, 1934, 2012) reduces the learner’s frustration and promotes what learning theorists
have described as positive human development in real-world settings (Krashen, 1982; Lehtonen,
2017; Maley, 2020).
Training helps organizations prepare employees for more responsibilities. However, its
impact is often standardized, diminishing the employees’ learning and the value to the
organization (Analytic Insights, 2020). According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in 2004,
only 2.2% of employers offered training focused on ELLs. Rosheim’s Training Magazine (2002,
2015) surveys ranked language programs 34th out of 34 training categories most frequently
provided by employers. Given the growing ELL population, one would expect these programs to
be offered more regularly. Training programs can be rigorously evaluated to determine their
139

efficacy. However, it is still challenging to convince executives focused on the bottom line that
these programs focused on ELLs have a return on investment (Sagastizado et al., 2010).
Technology provides a platform that supports culturally responsive education (CRE) that
is adaptive, rigorous, and inclusive (Stembridge, 2019). AI is scalable, enhances usage tracking
and insights into learner persistence, boosts completion rates, and increases accessibility and data
to measure training effectiveness. However, acknowledging learners’ emotions is vital
(Immordino-Yang & Gotliev, 2017). The emotional connection impacts learning memory,
decision-making, and creativity in social and non-social settings.
Recommendation 3: Employee Resource Groups
Organizations should establish an ERG focused on ELLs. ELLs are multilingual
professionals. In this study, 23 professionals spoke 16 different languages in addition to English.
Multilingualism is not just English and Spanish (Wiley, 2008). Companies need to move
aggressively and intentionally beyond age, race/ethnicity, and gender as factors for creating an
ERG. Some movement has begun, as indicated by the existence of ERGs focused on veterans or
LGBTQIA+ people. However, there is an opportunity for more. Research participants did not
identify any ERG, or corporate learning programs, explicitly focused on language. If
organizations do not survey employees about their language capabilities, perhaps this is not
surprising.
Study participants mentioned the safety of ERGs to engage with others in English
without fear of evaluation. Sharing or using new skills increased ELLs’ commitment to the
organization and decreased turnover. In addition to creating an ERG focused on ELLs, only 50%
of survey respondents participate in an ERG. There may be an opportunity to increase
140

attendance, which is not factored into the following cost-benefit analysis, shown in Tables 30
and 31.

Table 30
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Employee Resource Group for ELLs
Year Costs Benefits Benefits–costs
0 -0- -0- -0-
1 86,538 182,250 95,712
2 89,135 191,734 102,599
3 91,809 206,083 114,274
Total 267,482 580,067 312,585

141

Table 31
Recommendation 3: Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
Net present value
of costs
Net present value
of benefits
Benefits–costs Benefit-to-cost
ratio
224,579 486,422 261,843 2.17

Note. Detailed costs and benefits are included in Appendix D.

The cost-benefit analysis assumes an organization already has ERGs and, therefore,
adding one ERG can be absorbed within the current infrastructure and personnel. Companies
already have the infrastructure to support ERGs. Employee resource groups provide participants
with a sense of community, power, and connection and influence ELLs’ program participation
(Gumusluoglu et al., 2013).
Recommendation 4: Identify ELLs
Organizations are slow to understand changing workplace demographics and are
confounded by employees’ diversity, attitudes, and behaviors. Most interventions are designed to
meet the broad needs of employees, as identified by interview participants. At best, the chance of
finding support for ELL professionals seems almost random.
While tools and programs may address ELLs’ needs, organizations do not offer them
systematically. Training is often viewed as unavoidable (Rosheim, 2015) and unappreciated for
the significant contribution it can make to the bottom line. Combined with serious data gaps in
organizations’ ability to identify ELLs, organizations will continue to underestimate the potential
benefit and bottom-line gains that can be enjoyed by implementing COPs, ERGs, and
personalized language learning programs. Not understanding the relationship between ELLs and
142

organizations, quantitatively or qualitatively, will hinder organizations. Organizations must
monitor the relationship (Lewis, 2011) to achieve targeted organizational goals. Without this data
regarding the ELL population, organizations will be unable to understand the efficacy (or lack
thereof) of their current practices and ways to identify performance improvements (Dowd, 2005;
Levey & Ronco, 2012). Benchmarking is iterative (Dowd, 2005) and emphasizes the relationship
between organizations and their employees. Performance data will aid in improved decision-
making, increased program efficacy, greater accountability, and optimization of scarce
organizational resources, improving outcomes for ELLs and the organization.
No cost-benefit analysis is provided for this recommendation. The cost of introducing
and using a new data element will vary widely, depending on the organization’s current HR
software and data analysis tools.
Recommendation 5: Employers Must Value ELLs As Vital Contributors
Organizations must better understand their ELL stakeholders to develop equitable
systems and processes and proactively acknowledge ELLs’ contributions. Definitive
stakeholders have power, legitimacy, and urgency relative to an organization’s targeted
outcomes (Lewis, 2011). This definition means that managing networks and practices among
stakeholders to direct their efforts toward organizational goals is crucial.
The organization, including teams and supervisors, is responsible for showing
appreciation for ELLs’ talents and potential. If organizations identify ELLs and take intentional
steps to support them equitably, contributions to the bottom line can be more fully understood.
Without the data elements identified in Recommendation 4, it is unlikely that organizations will
genuinely understand and acknowledge the value of employees’ contributions.
143

Fortune 500 companies, more than most organizations, have technical complexity and
operate in a globally competitive economy (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2003; Kotter, 1995; Lepak &
Snell, 1999; Wright & McMahan, 1992). Increasing profitability through centralization, process
standardization, re-engineering, and other activities to increase efficiency has long been
exploited, and the opportunity to find further efficiencies is decreasing. Retaining and motivating
ELLs and minoritized populations is an opportunity to increase profits. Organizations must
implement practical diversity and understand that “different than is not less than” (Bennett-
Alexander, 2015).
Organizations can innovate and operate more effectively if greater diversity exists. If
properly cultivated, diverse experiences and backgrounds should result in a vigor that would not
exist in teams composed of individuals from similar backgrounds (Travis Jr., 1990). Thus, it can
be seen that organizations must change to survive and thrive (Pfeffer & Salancki, 1977). With
changing markets and technologies, power patterns have changed. As career mobility has
become the norm, the perceived power of organizations has decreased. One organization can
easily be substituted for another (Hickson et al., 1974). Notwithstanding the changing
environment, diversity presents challenges, but opportunities to effectively manage resources and
maximize ELLs’ contributions are not impossible.
Employee turnover, retention, and job satisfaction, as well as ways to positively
influence these factors, have been studied extensively (Bergdahl, 2018; Bersin et al., 2019,
Boswell et al., 2005; Boudreau et al., 2003; Branham, 2005; Connolly et al., 2000; Mansoor et
al., 2021; Sawyers, 2018). In Love ’Em or Lose ’Em (Kaye & Jordan-Evans, 2021) share
techniques for rewarding and supporting employees. In the Employee Benefit Research
Institute/Greenwald Research Workplace Wellness Survey (EBRI, 2021), 76% of the
144

interviewed employees revealed a favorable view of their employer’s efforts to improve their
overall well-being (emotional and physical). The workplace survey included 2,016 full-time and
part-time workers in the United States aged 21–64. Approximately 30% of the respondents were
Black, and 33% were Hispanic. The interviews were conducted in July 2021. Six in 10
employees would not trade their health benefits for compensation (ERBI). However, while health
insurance makes employees feel secure, one in three mentioned rising healthcare costs and
impacts, including a need to reduce contributions to retirement accounts, delayed trips to the
doctor, and increased credit card debt.
In this study, not one ELL mentioned compensation as a factor relative to things they
liked or did not like about their job. ELLs identified several opportunities for the organization to
make them feel valued. These include the following:
• participating in ERGs
• participating in CoPs
• participating in ethnic and holiday celebrations (commonly involving food)
• offering time during regular working hours for volunteering through company-
sponsored events with co-workers or independently
• receiving individual and team awards (certificates, plaques, and company “swag”
such as t-shirts, pens, water bottles, coffee mugs, and duffle bags)
• posting “shout-outs” or “kudos” on internal websites regularly promoted by the
company
• receiving “Bravo” or “SPOT” quarterly awards, individually or as a team, for
exceptional results, problem-solving skills, and creativity
• publicizing achievements and stories in company communications
145

• sending personal thank-you notes (which participants posted in their cubicles)
• receiving timely, specific feedback, positive or negative, from peers and their
supervisor
• providing job tools and resources
• supporting learning and training during regular working hours
• doing work or stretch assignments to learn new skills or explore new roles
• having devoted learning time during regular working hours (e.g., No meetings are
scheduled on Wednesdays from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.)
• financially supporting training, certifications, and education
• offering paid time off (sick days, holidays, vacations, and company shutdowns) and
encouraging employees to take it
• closing the office early (by half a day) to extend holidays
• taking breaks from meetings to avoid meeting overload (i.e., “quiet week”)
• allowing flexible working hours
• soliciting employee input through suggestion boxes, listening tours, and feedback
sessions
As evidenced by the ideas presented by ELLs and the literature, meaningful recognition
does not have to be expensive (Roepe, 2021). Clark and Estes (2008) stated that an essential
element of achieving organizational goals is access to adequate materials for employees to
perform their roles. This idea was also shared anecdotally during interviews. The mostly
intangible value of these rewards and recognitions will be discounted if employees do not feel
financially secure (EBRI, 2021) and do not have the basic tools to do their jobs.
146

There is a direct link between an individual’s day-to-day performance and an
organization’s intermediate- and long-term objectives (Rueda, 2011). Organizations need to align
ELLs with their broader goals to improve long-term objectives (“Employers Should Go Green,”
2007). Organizations should broadly communicate stories directly to connect ELLs’ value to
organizational success. In addition to corporate internal communications (Ruck, 2019), leaders
can use narrative storytelling to share knowledge and challenges to improve outcomes (Denning,
2006). Highlighting effective solutions fosters collaboration and an increased commitment to
achieving goals. In light of the wide range of solutions presented for Recommendation 5, no
cost-benefit analysis is provided, as the costs and benefits will vary.
Collectively, the five recommendations presented will benefit employees and employers
more than any one solution operating independently. The recommendations could create
systemic and pervasive opportunities for equity within the organization. Supporting the success
of ELLs as whole people will mean they can contribute more effectively to the organization’s
bottom-line results. Together, organizations and ELLs can achieve their maximum potential. No
single recommendation will solve problems facing organizations as they move beyond race and
gender when implementing equity for ELLs.
Limitations and Delimitations
In addition to the limitations and delimitations detailed in Chapter Three, two other
limitations should be noted. First, this study was conducted as the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic were waning. In January and February 2022, the interview participants had not all
returned to the office, and some had limitations on their work schedules due to personal
obligations. Some participants did not have recent experience with COPs and ERGs or felt the
147

value of the experience had been diminished over Zoom, Teams, or other online meeting
platforms.
Second, while every measure was taken to minimize bias in the design and study conduct,
the role and identity of the researcher, particularly in the interview phase, should be considered.
Two of the participants who were interviewed were known to the researcher before the study,
although they all no longer work for the same organization. Despite these challenges, the study
identified several themes around the ELLs’ workplace experience and five recommendations for
building equity. Research that clarifies or improves these findings is encouraged.
Implementation and Evaluation
Human resources, talent development, and DEI professionals all have a role in
implementing and evaluating equity initiatives for ELLs. Aside from issues with talent
acquisition (Kerekes, 2004; Turchick et al., 2010) and the impact of higher retention, stress, and
conflict (Kim et al., 2019), some courts and government agencies have said that language
discrimination is a form of national-origin discrimination. Employees have filed lawsuits and
complaints with the EEOC (Language Discrimination, n.d.). Linguicism (Skutnabb-Kangas,
1989), linguistic discrimination, or language profiling is culturally and socially determined due
to preferences for one language over others, a language standard (Baugh, 2003; Lippi-Green,
2004). Kalarao (2004) and Knight (2016) noted that recognizing cultural differences is key to
breaching the language barrier.
Without understanding the perspective and values of ELLs, employers will not succeed in
making the necessary gains in KPIs, ultimately impacting revenue and profitability. Diversity is
no longer the problem to solve. Problems faced by ELLs and organizations created in the
workplace facing globalization, collaboration, and teamwork will not fix themselves (Block &
148

Noumair, 2015; Marschan et al., 1997; O’Neill, 2011). Though difficult to quantify, the value of
cross-cultural collaboration can foster an environment that promotes creativity and innovation
(Goodman, 2017). These are desirable characteristics, providing organizations with a
competitive advantage. Retaining ELLs is vital to achieving a company’s vision, mission, and
goals, and the proposed interventions are not feel-good programs (Hunter & Cooke, 2014).
Recommendations for Future Research
Further research would facilitate a deeper understanding of how organizations can build
equitable, sustainable, and financially viable systems that support the specific needs of ELLs.
Research on economic theory and incentive structures can help organizations prioritize and
allocate scarce resources of time and money. Furthermore, research on positive and negative
rewards may provide important insights into factors improving retention and other critical KPIs
for ELLs in the technology workforce. Many studies about employee diversity and
organizational performance either fail or confuse the intersectionality of a person’s demographic
status (e.g., age, socioeconomic status, gender, or racial/ethnic diversity) and seldom look at
language. Quantitative and qualitative research with corporate data identifying ELLs would be
beneficial.
Future studies should explore the effort necessary to drive positive organizational
benefits and increase ELLs’ feelings of status, fit, and belonging. Although there are many
general studies about diversity and inclusion, research focusing on equity for ELLs that explicitly
connects to the effectiveness of recommended practices would be desirable. In particular,
additional evidence-based research should be undertaken on the viability and efficacy of
suggested industry-based best practices for equity, focusing on ELLs in highly skilled
professions.
149

The first research recommendation is to replicate this study with the support of one or
more Fortune 500 companies to harness the power of a much larger ELL sample size. It is
expected that both ELLs and native English speakers will participate, and they will be asked to
self-identify in the survey since most organizations do not have a way to identify ELLs. While a
larger sample of ELLs is the primary goal, surveying all employees would make it possible to
compare and contrast the experiences of ELLs and native English speakers.
The second research recommendation is to conduct this study to identify other avenues
for building equity. Some studies have made a case for improving supervisory skills and
mentoring relationships to improve job satisfaction, employee turnover, employee engagement
(e-NPS), and other workforce metrics. This study did not consider alternatives outside the
mesosystem as they did not meet the definition of equity since they vary greatly based on the
individuals involved. However, they should not be summarily dismissed. Cronbach (1954, 1975)
eloquently stated that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt in our
hypotheses, and our observations should be open to them. Other opportunities for systemic
organizational processes that build equity may include corporate communications, dual-track
career paths, and education without clawbacks. A clawback requires an employee to repay
tuition and learning costs if they leave the organization within a certain period, typically a year
or more. These ideas can be implemented systematically and transparently and will not rely on
individual intervention from supervisors or leaders in delivering equity for ELLs.
The third research recommendation is to conduct a longitudinal study with highly skilled
ELLs to capture before and after metrics as equity focused on ELLs is introduced to the
organization. The study could evaluate changes in financial performance measured by KPIs such
150

as employee engagement, job satisfaction, retention, turnover, absenteeism, project delays, and
other standard business measures.
The fourth research recommendation is to define study variables more narrowly.
Controlling variables and narrowing the lens (Ushioda, 2016) will provide greater clarity and
help surface specific factors that drive ELLs’ workplace experiences and employee engagement.
ELLs in this research study represented many languages, races, ages, gender, education,
industries, geographies, and job tenure, to name a few of the demographic variables captured.
Conclusion
Delivering equity for ELLs is a challenging problem of practice with considerable
barriers to substantive change. The problem is especially pervasive in technology, medicine, and
other industries where there is an insufficient supply of highly skilled professionals (Colby &
Ortman, 2015; Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, 2020; Floyd, 2012;
Lumina Foundation, 2014; Richard & D’Amico, 1997; Thomas, 1994). These and other studies
have long documented a burgeoning need for the United States to import highly skilled workers
to compete in the global economy. This dynamic has created a “superdiversity” (Vertovec, 2007,
p. 1024) that has already created a minority majority (Brownstein, 2011), known as the
demographic eclipse. The trend is continuing and is accelerating.
Stockholders, customers, and employees demand that organizations prioritize diversity
and inclusion initiatives, but organizations rarely understand how to make fundamental systemic
changes in their approaches to equity. Kotter (1995) suggested that (among other reasons) many
change efforts fail due to a lack of urgency, a lack of planning to capture short-term wins, and
the fact that changes are not anchored in the corporate culture. The challenges of changing are
151

exacerbated by technical complexity, the diversity of people in the organization, and the
organization’s size. Continuous change has become the new constant (Popper & Wagner, 2002).
Organizations sometimes treat a lack of English fluency as a person’s deficit, and
interventions have burdened the individual (Hunter & Cooke, 2014). Future leaders will benefit
from encouraging greater involvement of ELLs within their organizations (Learner & Overton,
2008). Leaders who can advocate for themselves, their families, their communities, and society
will help create positive change.
Many ELLs attribute their success to the support of their supervisor, teammates, or
mentors. Unfortunately, individual experiences and interactions do not systematically create
equity throughout an organization. A one-size-fits-all approach to equity is not equitable and
does not significantly or consistently improve individual success or the organization’s
performance. Based on the results and findings of this study, specific recommendations were
proposed in the mesosystem, including communities of practice, employee resource groups, and
personalized learning programs for ELLs. COPs and ERGs have shown promise in building
diversity and inclusion (Ananyeva, 2013; Housel, 2019) by being culturally responsive. They
adapt to employees’ needs and are inclusive. Technology organizations and ELLs are already
familiar with AI, gamification, and mobile experiences (Golonka et al., 2014). Thus, it would
seem sensible for organizations to leverage these ideas to support ELL equity efforts through an
adapted ESM (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 2005; Kasbi & Elahi Shrivan, 2017). This study also
outlined an implementation plan and a cost-benefit analysis to assess the efficiency and
effectiveness of proposed solutions.
Instead of solving an education problem, McGee and Johnson (2015) have offered
organizational behavior management as a different lens for addressing the challenges of a
152

linguistically diverse workforce. The study identified ELLs’ workplace perceptions of DEI in an
adapted ESM. Findings suggest that more consistent connections in the mesosystem between
ELLs and the organization will provide financial benefits from improved KPIs such as retention,
turnover, sick days, conflict, project delays, and other standard measures frequently used by HR
organizations.
With forecasts predicting a shortage of one million workers by 2025 (Iammartino et al.,
2016), organizations must recognize and align with ELLs’ needs sooner rather than later.
Increasing equity and removing barriers to success for ELLs will also improve their sense of fit,
status, and belonging. The U.S. workforce is increasingly diverse in gender, race, ethnicity
(Leong & Seralica, 2001), and language. Senior managers and leaders must understand the
consequences of this diversity. ELLs state that their first goal as language learners is an
opportunity to advance economically, but they are often inhibited by their life situations (Finn,
2011; Hayes, 1989). Financial goals can be derived from annual pay increases, merit pay
increases, profit-sharing plans, and increased job responsibilities leading to career advancement.
Enhancing alignment will also benefit the organization. Addressing organizational influences
and long-standing cultural norms will require intentionality, communication, and top-down and
bottom-up approaches to drive change for ELLs (Doerfel & Gibbs, 2020). Despite extensive data
on other personal characteristics, most organizations cannot identify the ELL population, so it
will be difficult to identify the employees who can benefit from new opportunities for equity.
Feedback from ELLs indicates that current training program offerings do not provide the
appropriate support for their short-term or long-term needs regarding current jobs or aspirations.
Unfulfilled needs lead to many issues, such as ELLs (and native English speakers) feeling
excluded, disengaged, and frustrated (Shih, 2017; Stubbe, 2017). Job opportunities abound, and
153

38% of the ELLs have moved to other roles or companies in the last year. An additional 21%
have started new jobs in the last two years.
In light of the recent intense and sustained attention regarding social justice issues, the
proposed recommendations may prove even more timely and valuable than imagined at the
beginning of this research in May 2019. The evidence presented in this study and the societal
attention placed on improving equity for underserved populations should serve as a call to action
for organizations. Organizations must view building and improving equity for minority
populations as an imperative. A firm’s intellectual capital is increasingly critical for sustained
competitiveness (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2003; Lepak & Snell, 1999; Wright & McMahan, 1992).
Retaining talent remains a crucial task.
Businesses have slowly begun to recognize the importance of improving equity to
address organizational challenges. Automation, reorganization, and other strategies drive
performance improvements by centralizing work or creating process standards, but they have not
focused adequately on the workforce’s needs. Organizations have increased diversity but must
now improve efforts to address inclusion and equity. The organization’s performance will
worsen unless forward-thinking solutions are implemented to recognize and support ELLs’
valuable and essential contributions.
154

References
Accent-American. (2022, April). Effective American English pronunciation is essential in
business. https://www.accent-american.com/business/
Agocs, C. (June 1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 917–931.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017939404578
Alas, R., & Vadi, M. (2006). The employees' attitudes and their connections with the
organisational culture in the process of change in the Estonian organisations. Baltic
Journal of Management, 1, 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465260610640877
Albino, G. (2017). Improving speaking fluency in a task-based language teaching approach: The
case of EFL learners at PUNIV-Cazenga. SAGE Open, 7(2), 215824401769107–.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017691077
Alper, S. & Tjosvold, D. & Law, K. (2012). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in
organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53. 625–642.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00216.x
Ananyeva, M. (2014). A learning curriculum: Toward student-driven pedagogy in the context of
adult English for academic purposes, English for specific purposes, and workplace
English programs. TESOL Journal, 5(1). 8–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.73
Arthur-Mensah, N. (2020). Bridging the industry–education skills gap for human resource
development. Industrial and Commercial Training, 52(2), 93–103.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-11-2019-0105
Ashforth, B. (2000). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective.
Routledge.
155

Aslan, E. (2017). Doing away with the ‘native speaker’: A complex adaptive systems approach
to L2 phonological attainment. The Language Learning Journal, 45(4), 447–465.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.934271
Atkinson, M. (2014). Reframing literacy in adult ESL programs: Making the case for the
inclusion of identity. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 22(1), 3–20.
https://doi.org/10.5130/lns.v22i1.4176
Barrett, N., & Liu, G-Z. (2019). Factors that influence the development and performance of
academic oral presentations using a blended learning environment. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 35(6), 708–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12376
Baugh, J. (2003). Linguistic profiling. In S. Makonis, G. Smitherman, A. F. Ball, & A. K. Spears
(eds.) Black linguistics: Language, Society, and Politics in Africa and the Americas (pp.
155–168). Routledge.
Baugh, J. (2018). Linguistics in pursuit of justice. Cambridge University Press.
Baugh. J. (2017). Meaning-less differences: Exposing fallacies and flaws in “The Word Gap”
hypothesis that conceal a dangerous “Language Trap” for low-income American families
and their children. International Multilingual Research Journal, 11(1), 39–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1258189
Behie, S. & Henwood, M. K. (2018). Closing the skills gap. Chemical Engineering
Progress, 114(6), 36–41.
https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/273cgt/cdi_proquest_misc
ellaneous_2061876920
156

Beliz, G., Basco, A., & de Azevedo, B. (2019). Harnessing the opportunities of inclusive
technologies in a global economy. Economics. The Open-Access, Open-Assessment e-
Journal, 13(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2019-6
Bennett-Alexander, D. (2015, May 5). Practical diversity: Taking inclusion from theory to
practice [Video]. TEDxUGA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExcDNly1DbI
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A., & Witham, K. (2016). Five principles for enacting equity by design.
Diversity & Democracy, 19(1).
https://www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy/2016/winter/bensimon
Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. Journal of
the Acoustical Society of America, 114(4), 1600–1610. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1603234
Bergdahl, M. (2018). Putting your employees first: The ABC’s for leaders of generations X, Y, &
Z. Sourcebooks.
Berry, J. (2021). Linguistic profiling: Its prevalence and consequence. Michigan Academician,
47(3), 78–78.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/6c213cb124f9d5f1ae4328dbf85e3381/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=696403
Bersin, J., Loukides, M., Magoulas, R. & O’Reilly, T. (2019). Future of the firm. O’Reilly
Media, Safari ebooks. https://www.oreilly.com/library-
access/?next=/library/view/Future-of-the/9781492053859/
Blanchard, K. & Johnson, S. (1982). The one-minute manager. Morrow.
Blin, F. (2016). Toward an ‘ecological’ CALL theory: Theoretical perspective and their
instantiation in CALL research and practice. In F. Murray & L. Murray (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 39–54). Routledge.
157

https://uosc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01USC_INST/hs9vaa/alma99104339872
13037
Block, C. J., & Noumair, D. A. (2015). Understanding diversity dynamics in systems: Social
equality as an organization change issue. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
51(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314566493
Bloomaert, J. & Backus, A. (2013). Superdiverse repertoires and the individual. In I. Saint-
Georges & J. Weber. (Eds.), Multilingualism and Modality (pp. 9–32). Springer.
Bolger, M. (n.d.) What’s the difference between diversity, inclusion, and equity? General
Assembly Blog. https://generalassemb.ly/blog/diversity-inclusion-equity-differences-in-
meaning/
Bonfiglio, P. (2008). Language, racism, and ethnicity. In M. Hellinger & A. Pauwels (Eds.),
Handbook of language and communication: Diversity and change (pp. 685–418).
Mouton de Gruyter.
Boswell, W., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The relationship between employee job
change and job satisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(5), 882–892. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.882
Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2003). Strategic industrial and organizational psychology
and the role of utility analysis models. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Branham, L. (2005). 7 hidden reasons employees leave (1
st
ed.). American Management
Association.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
158

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human
development. Sage Publications.
Brooks, A. (2009). Complexity and community: Finding what works in workplace ESL. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2009(121), 65–74. Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.326
Brown, J. (1981). Newly placed versus continuing students: Comparing proficiency. In J. C.
Fisher, M. A. Clarke, & J. Schachter (Eds.), Building bridges: Research and practice in
teaching English as a second language (pp. 111–117). TESOL.
Brownstein, R. (2011, May 31). Why the white working class is alienated, pessimistic. National
Journal. https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/exclusive/why-white-working-class-
alienated-pessimistic-141725366.html
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest
managers do differently. Simon & Schuster.
Burke, W., & Litwin, G. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change.
Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306
Cappelli, P. (2015). Skill gaps, skill shortages, and skill mismatches: Evidence and arguments for
the U.S. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 68(2), 251–290.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793914564961
Carnevale, A. P., Strohl, J., Ridley, N., & Gulish, A. (2018). Three educational pathways to good
jobs: High school, middle skills, and bachelor’s degree. Georgetown University Center
on Education and the Workforce. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/3pathways/
159

Cascio, E. & Narayan, A. (2022). Who needs a fracking education? The educational response to
low-skill-biased technological change. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 75(1), 56–
89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793920947422
Cave, D. & Schuetze, C. (2021, November 23). Contending with the pandemic, wealthy nations
wage global battle for migrants. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/23/world/asia/immigration-pandemic-labor-
shortages.html
Chae, H., Park, J., & Choi, J. (2019). Two facets of conscientiousness and the knowledge sharing
dilemmas in the workplace: Contrasting moderating functions of supervisor support and
co-worker support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(4), 387–399.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2337
Charlton, D. & Kostandini, G. (2021). Can technology compensate for a labor shortage? Effects
of 287(g) immigration policies on the U.S. dairy industry. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 103(1), 70–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12125
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Colby, S. & Ortman, J. (2015). Projections of the size composition of the U.S. population: 2014
to 2060, current population reports, pp. 25–1143, U.S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.html
Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-
analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(2), 265–
281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00192-0
160

Coombs, J. (2015). Coming to terms with demographic change in the workplace. Society of
Human Resources Management. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-
topics/talent-acquisition/pages/older-demographic-change-workplace.aspx
Costanza, D., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M., Severt, J., & DeCostanza, A. (2016). The effect of
adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business Psychology,
31, 261–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9420-y
Coupland, N, & Bishop, H. (2007). Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 11, 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00311.x
Cox, T. H., Jr. (1991). The multicultural organization. The Academy of Management Executive,
5(2), 34–47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4165006
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed). SAGE.
Cronbach, L. (1954). Report on a psychometric mission to clinician. Psychometrika, 19, 263–
270. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/BF02289226
Cronbach, L. (1975). Beyond two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist,
30, 116–127. https://doi.org/10.10137/h0076829
Cunningham Florez, M. (1998). Concepts and terms in adult ESL. National Center for ESL
literacy education. http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/digests/termsQA.html
Dana, D. (2001). Conflict resolution. McGraw Hill.
Denning, S. (2006). Effective storytelling: Strategic business narrative techniques. Strategy and
Leadership, 31(1), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/108785706106337885
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, K. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review. July–
August 2016, 52–60. https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail
161

Dodigovic, M. (2005). Artificial intelligence in second language learning: Raising error
awareness. Multilingual Matters.
Doerfel, M. L., & Gibbs, J. L. (Eds.). (2020). Organizing inclusion: Moving diversity from
demographics to communication processes (1st ed.). Routledge.
Dowd, A. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
community college performance. Lumina Foundation for Education.
Dragojevice, M., Gosiorel, J., & Giles, H. (2014). Communication accommodation theory. In C.
R. Berger, & M. L. Roloff (Eds.), Encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (29–51).
Wiley Blackwell.
Dudovskiy, J. (2018). The ultimate guide to writing a dissertation in business studies: A step-by-
step assistance. Business Research Methodology. https://research-methodology.net/about-
us/ebook/
Duff, P., Wong, P., & Early, M. (2002). Learning language for work and life: The linguistic
socialization of immigrant Canadians seeking careers in healthcare. The Modern
Language Journal, 86(3), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.t01-1-00157
Dutta. S., & Mia. L. (2011). The global information technology report 2010-2011. In World
Economic Forum, 24, pp. 331-391. https://www.ifap.ru/library/book494.pdf
Duval-Couetil, N., & Mikulecky, L. (2011). Immigrants, English, and the workplace. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 23(3), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665621111117233
Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates. (2020). Home page: About us.
https://www.ecfmg.org/about/index.html
Elder, C., Pill, J., Woodward-Kron, R., McNamara, T., Manias, E., Webb, G., & McColl, G.
(2012). Health professionals’ views of communication: Implications for assessing
162

performance on a health-specific English language test. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a
Second Dialect, 46(2), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.26
Employee Benefit Research Institute/Greenwald Research. (2021). Workplace wellness survey.
Washington, DC.
Gale OneFile (2007). Employers should go ‘Green’-employees notice & appreciate it. HR
Focus, 84(12), 9.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A174322644/ITBC?u=usocal_main&sid=bookmark-
ITBC&xid=63fe5084
Equity in the Center. (2019). Awake to woke to work: Building a race equity culture.
https://equityinthecenter.org/aww/
Ewert, D. (2014). Content‐learning tasks for adult ESL learners: Promoting literacy for work or
school. TESOL Journal, 5(2), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.119
Factoric, M. (2021). 22 diversity, equity, and inclusion survey questions to help you get off the
mark. Worktango. https://worktango.com/2021/02/03/22-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-
survey-questions-to-help-you-get-off-the-mark/
Finn, D. (2011). Principles of adult learning: An ESL context. Journal of Adult Education, 40(1),
34–39. http://search.proquest.com/docview/917547795/
Floyd, R. (2012) ESL: Are we really communicating? International Journal of Business,
Humanities and Technology, 2(2), 99–104.
http://ijbhtnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_2_March_2012/13.pdf
Mittra, A. (2022, April). 10 Brilliant resources to help you ace American Business English.
Fluent. https://www.fluentu.com/blog/business-english/american-business-english/
163

Francois, J. (2021). Impact of multimodal feedback and formulaic sequences on improving
fluency of English learners on computer-based speaking assessments. [Doctoral
dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University]. JEWLScholar@MTSU.
https://jewlscholar.mtsu.edu/handle/mtsu/6468
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
26(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gerhart, B. (1987). How important are dispositional factors as determinants of job satisfaction?
Implications for job design and other personnel programs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72(3), 366–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.366
Gheriani, H. (2019). English as a second language: Adult programs and their impact on second
language learners’ aspirations [Doctoral dissertation, Lindenwood University] ProQuest
Dissertation Publishing. http://search.proquest.com/docview/2247889398/
Giles, H. (2016). Communication accommodation theory. In K. B. Jensen & R. Craig (Eds.), The
international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Giles, H., & Soliz, J. (2014). Communication accommodation theory: A situated framework for
interpersonal, family, and intergroup dynamics. In D. Braithewaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.),
Engaging theories in interpersonal communications. (2nd ed., pp. 130–142). Sage.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Gluszek, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2010). Speaking with a nonnative accent: Perceptions of bias,
communication difficulties, and belonging in the U.S. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 29(2), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09359590
164

Goh, C. (2017). Research into practice: Scaffolding learning processes to improve speaking
performance. Language Teaching, 50(2), 247–260.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000483
Golonka, E., Bowles, A., Frank, V., Richardson, D., & Freynik, S. (2014) Technologies for
foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105.
https://doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.700315
Goodman, N. (2017, June). Innovation, creativity and learning. Training Magazine.
https://trainingmag.com/trgmag-article/innovation-creativity-and-learning/
Gotz, S. (2013). Fluency in native and nonnative English speech. In fluency in native and
nonnative English speech. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gray, M. (2018). What skills gap? Issues in Science and Technology, 34(4), 5.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A549337328/GRNR?u=usocal_main&sid=bookmark-
GRNR&xid=59a79859
Green, W. (2018). Employee resource groups as learning communities. Equality, Diversity, and
Inclusion: An International Journal, 37(7), 634–648. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-11-
2016-0085
Grin, S., Sfreddo, C., Vaillancourt, F. (2010). The Economics of the multilingual workplace.
Routledge.
Grognet, A. (1997). Integrating employment skills into adult ESL instructions. ERIC Q&A,
Washington, DC: National Center for ESL Literacy Education. (ERIC no. ED 409 748).
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED409748
165

Gumusluoglu, L., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z., & Hirst, G. (2013). Transformational leadership and
R&D workers’ multiple commitments: Do justice and span of control matter? Journal of
Business Research, 66(11), 2269–2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.039
Guth, G. (1993). Profiles of adult literacy programs. TESOL Quarterly, 27(3), 533–537.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587482
Handari, C., (2021). 9 ways to learn English at home in your pajamas.
https://www.fluentu.com/blog/english/how-to-learn-english-at-home/
Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist
institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9–29.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0047
Harris, F., & Bensimon, E. (Winter 2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative approach to
assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes. New Directions for
Student Services, 2007(120), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.259
Hasnain, S. & Halder, S. (2021). Task-based language teaching approach for improving speaking
fluency: Case study of trainee teachers in West Bengal. World Futures.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2021.1996189
Hastwell, C. (2020, January). What are employee resource groups (ERGs)? Great Places to
Work. https://www.greatplacetowork.com/resources/blog/what-are-employee-resource-
groups-ergs
Hayes, E. (1989). Hispanic adults and ESL programs: Barriers to participation. TESOL
Quarterly, 23(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587507
Hays-Thomas, R. (2016). Managing workplace diversity and inclusion: A psychological
perspective. Routledge.
166

Hazel, S. (2018). Multilingual workplaces-Interactional dynamics of the contemporary
international workforce. Journal of Pragmatics, 126, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.11.005
Heen, S., & Stone, D. (January–February, 2014). Find the coaching in criticism: The right ways
to receive feedback. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/01/find-the-
coaching-in-criticism
Heisler, W., & Bandow, D. (2018). Retaining and engaging older workers: A solution to worker
shortages. U.S. Business Horizon, 61, 421–430. https://hbr.org/2014/01/find-the-
coaching-in-criticism
Henderson, S., & Barker, M. (2018). Developing nurses’ intercultural/interprofessional
communication skills using the Excellence in cultural experiential learning and leadership
social interaction maps. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(17–18), 3276–3286.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14089
Hickson, D., Hinings, C, Lee, C., Schenck, R. (1974). A strategic contingencies theory of
intraorganizational power. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 16(2), 216–29.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391831
Hinnings, C., Hickson, J., Pennings, J., & Schneck, R. (March 1974). Structural conditions of
intraorganizational power. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 19(1), 22–44.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391786
Holvino, E. (2008). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization
studies. Gender, Work & Organization, 17(3), 248–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
0432.2008.00400.x
167

Holzman, L. (2018). Zones of proximal development: magical and mundane. In J. Lantolf, M.
Poehner, & M. Swain (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second
language development (pp. 42–55). Routledge.
Horvat, A., Dobrota, M., Krsmanovic, M., & Cudanov, M. (2015). Student perception of Moodle
learning management system: A satisfaction and significance analysis. Interactive
Learning Environments, 23(4), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.788033
Hosoda, M., & Stone-Romero, E. (2010). The effects of foreign accents on employment-related
decisions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(2), 113–132.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011019339
Housel, D. (2020). When co-occurring factors impact adult learners: Suggestions for instruction,
preservice training, and professional development. Adult Learning, 31(1), 6–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159519849910
Huang, L., Frideger, M., & Pearce, J. L. (2013). Political skill: Explaining the effects of
nonnative accent on managerial hiring and entrepreneurial investment decisions. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 98, 1005–1017. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034125
Hunter, J., & Cooke, D. (2014). Education for power: English language in the workplace. Power
and Education, 6(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.2304/power.2014.6.3.253
Iammartino, B., Bischoof, J., Willey, C., Shapiro, P. (2016). Emergence in the U.S. science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce: An agent-based model of
worker attrition and group size in high-density STEM organizations. Complex &
Intelligent Systems, 2(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-016-0015-7
Igoudin, A. (2008). Adult student motivation for advanced ESL learning: A group case study.
CATESOL Journal, 20(1), 27–48. http://search.proquest.com/docview/919961967/
168

Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Gotliev, R. (2017). An evolving understanding of social emotions
from a mind, brain and education perspective. In M. S. Schwartz & E. J. Paré-Blagoev
(Eds.), Research in mind, brain, and education (47-73). Routledge.
Inklaar, R. & Papakonstantinou, M. (2020). Vintage effects in human capital: Europe versus the
U.S. The Review of Income and Wealth, 66(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12382
Jared, B. (2021). Linguistic profiling: Its prevalence and consequence. Michigan Academician,
47(3), 78.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/6c213cb124f9d5f1ae4328dbf85e3381/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=696403
Johnson, K., Pasquale, F., & Chapman, J. (2019). Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and
bias in finance: Toward responsible innovation. Fordham Law Review, 88(2), 499–529.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5629&context=flr
Kalarao, N. (2004). Breaching the language barrier. Occupational Health & Safety, 73(6), 60–65.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/221000233/
Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance.
Harvard Business Review, 83(7), 172.
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=9161
Kasbi, S., & Elahi Shirvan, M. (2017). Ecological understanding of foreign language speaking
anxiety: emerging patterns and dynamic systems. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and
Foreign Language Education, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0026-y
Kassim, H., & Mohd Radzuan, N. R. (2008). Resolving conflict: Enhancing engineering
students’ English fluency through workplace situation. International Journal of Learning,
14(11), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v14i11/45517
169

Kaye, B., & Jordan-Evans, S. (2021) Love ‘Em or Lose ‘Em, 6th Edition. Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Kerekes, J. (2004). Preparing ESL learners for self-presentation in institutional settings outside
the classroom. Prospect, 19(1). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Preparing-ESL-
learners-for-self-presentation-in-the-
Kerekes/9fe574b255c70de429ea0f949378388f95852775
Kessler, G. (2013). Collaborative language learning in co-constructed participatory culture.
CALICO Journal, 30(3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.30.3.307-322
Keyton, J. (2011). Communication and organizational culture. Sage.
Kim, R., Roberson, L., Russo, M., & Briganti, P. (2019). Language diversity, nonnative accents,
and their consequences at the workplace: Recommendations for individuals, teams, and
organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 55(1), 73–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318800997
Kim, S., Song, K., Lockee, B., Burton, J. (2018). What is gamification in learning and
education? In S. Kim, K. Song, B. Lockee & J. Burtoon (Eds.), Gamification in learning
and education:Advances in game-based learning (25–36). Springer, Cham.
King, C., & Juniper, C. (2017). Employer benefits and cost of English @ Work Participation.
The Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources, The University of Texas at
Austin. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. http://hdl.handle.net/2152/62152
Kline, M. (2006). The relationship between motivational variables, anxiety, exposure to English,
and language learning strategies among adult ESL learners. [Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Southern California] ProQuest.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304968039/
170

Knight, M. (2016). Global English and multilingual writers in the workplace. Business and
Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(4), 395–396.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490616681766
Knowles, M., Holton, E., Swanson, R., & Robinson, P. (2020). The adult learner the definitive
classic in adult education and human resource development (9th ed.). Elsevier.
Kongrith, K., & Maddux, C. (2005). Online learning as a demonstration of type II technology,
computers in the schools. In C. D. Maddux & D. L. Johnson (Eds.), Internet Applications
of Type II Uses of Technology in Education (pp. 97–110). Routledge.
Kormos, J., & Csizer, K. (2014). The interaction of motivation, self‐regulatory strategies, and
autonomous learning behavior in different learner groups. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 275–299.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.129
Kotter, J. (1995). Leading Change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
73, 59–67. https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice of second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Pegrum, M. (2018). Linguistic diversity in online and mobile learning.
In A. Creese, A. Blackledge, & A. Routledge (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
language and superdiversity (pp. 518–532). Routledge.
Kulkarni, M. (2014, September). Language based diversity and faultlines in organizations.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1954
Language discrimination. (n.d.). Workplace Fairness.
https://www.workplacefairness.org/language-discrimination
171

Lansangan-Sabangan, S. (2019). Understanding the goals and needs of ESL students to improve
persistence or goal attainment. [Doctoral Dissertation, National American University]
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2201922231/
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2013). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice.
In M. Lea & K. Nicoll (Eds.), In distributed learning: Social and cultural approaches to
practice (pp. 56–63). Routledge.
Lehtonen, T. (2017). "You will certainly learn English much faster at work than from a
textbook." – Law students learning English beyond the language classroom. System, 68,
50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.013
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Wiley.
Leong, F., & Seralica, F. (2001). Cross-cultural perspective on Super’s career development
theory: Career maturity and cultural accommodation. In F. T. Leong, & A. Barak (Eds.),
Contemporary models in vocational psychology (pp. 167–206). Erlbaum.
Leong, F., & Tang, M. (2016). Career barriers for Chinese immigrants in the U.S. Career
Development Quarterly, 64(3), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12059
Lepak, D., & Snell, S. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human
capital allocation and development. The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31–48.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259035
Lerner, R., & Overton, W. (2008). Exemplifying the integrations of the relational developmental
system: Synthesizing theory, research, and application to promote positive development
and social justice. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(3), 245–255.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408314385
172

Lev-Ari, S., & Keysar, B. (2010) Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of
accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1093–1096,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.025
Levin, R. (2019). Cringing at how teens talk? Surprise–language changes. USC Trojan Family.
https://news.usc.edu/trojan-family/why-language-changes-evolution-of-speech/
Levy, G., & Ronco, S. (2012). How benchmarking and higher education came together. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 2012(156), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20026
Lewis, L. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication.
Wiley-Blackwell.
Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualtiative research in education: A user’s guide. Sage.
Lippi-Green, R. (2004). Language ideology and language prejudice. In E. Finegan & J. Rickford
(Eds.), Language in the USA: Themes for the twenty-first century. Cambridge University
Press.
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the
U.S. (2nd ed.). Routledge
Locke, l., Silverman, S. & Spirduso, W. (2009). Reading and understanding research. Sage
Publication.
Lumina Foundation (2014). A stronger nation through higher education: Closing the gaps in
college attainment. https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/a-stronger-nation-
through-higher-education-2014.pdf
Lund, S., & Hancock, B. (2021). Equipping a new generation with the skills needed in the
automation age. In J. Wingard & C. Farrugia. (Eds.), The great skills gap: optimizing
talent for the future of work (pp. 17–28). Stanford Business Books.
173

Luo, W. (2014). An investment in social identity: Making language learning meaningful and
effective for adult ESL learners. [Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University].
http://hdl.handle.net/1803/6436
Lutz, B., & Paretti, M. (2021). Exploring the social and cultural dimensions of learning for
recent engineering graduates during the school-to-work transition. Engineering Studies,
13(2), 132–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2021.1957901
MacIntyre, P., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (2019). Setting an agenda for positive psychology in
SLA: Theory, practice, and research. The Modern Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 262–
274. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12544
Madera, J., Dawson, M., & Neal, J. (2014). Managing language barriers in the workplace: The
roles of job demands and resources on turnover intentions. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 42, 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.06.004
Madrid, M. [@madrid_mike]. (2021, January 23). The next twenty years will witness the
transformation of America from a white majority country to a non-white majority
country. [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/madrid_mike/status/1353076633410756611
Mai, R., & Hoffmann, S. (2014). Accents in business communication: An integrative model and
propositions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(1), 137–158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.09.004
Maley, A. (2020). English teaching and the science of happiness: Positive psychology
communication activities for language learning, ELT Journal, 74(1), 100–102.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz051
174

Mallick, S., & Sousa, R. (2017). The skill premium effect of technological change: New
evidence from U.S. manufacturing. International Labour Review, 156(1), 113–131.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2015.00047.x
Manpower, (2014). The talent shortage continues: How the ever-changing role of HR can bridge
the gap. https://www.manpowergroup.com/wcm/connect/c2ddd2bc-fa8f-4d7f-8281-
6bd96071a160/2014_talent_shortage_wp_us2.pdf?mod=ajperes&cacheid=rootwork
space-c2ddd2bc-fa8f-4d7f-8281-6bd96071a160-n2aedaq
March, J., & Simon, H. (1993). Organizations. (2
nd
ed.). Blackwell.
Markey, R., & Reichheld, F. (2011, December 8). Introducing the net promotor score. Bain &
Company. https://www.bain.com/insights/introducing-the-net-promoter-system-loyalty-
insights/
Marschan, R., Welch, D., & Welch, L. (1997). Language: The forgotten factor in multinational
management. European Management Journal, 15(5), 591–598.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(97)00038-8
Matthewman, J. (2011). The rise of the global nomad: How to manage the new profession in
order to gain recovery and maximize future growth. Kogan Page Publishers.
Maxwell, G., Locke, L, & Scheurich, J. (2013). Case study of three rural Texas superintendents
as equity-oriented change agents. Qualitative Report, 18(11), 1–23.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1005489
McFeely, S., & Wigert, B. (March 13, 2019). This fixable problem costs U.S. businesses $1
trillion. Workplace. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/247391/fixable-
problem-costs-businesses-
175

trillion.aspx#:~:text=The%20cost%20of%20replacing%20an,to%20%242.6%20million%
20per%20year
McGee, H. (2021). The sum of us: What racism costs everyone and how we can prosper
together. Random House.
McGee, H., & Johnson, D. (April 2015). Performance motivation as the behaviorist views it.
Performance improvement. International Society for Performance Improvement. 54(4),
https://doi.org/10.1992/pfi.21472
McGuinness, S., & Ortiz, L. (2016). Skill gaps in the workplace: Measurement, determinants and
impacts. Industrial Relations Journal, 47(3), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12136
McGuinness, S., Pouliakas, K., & Redmond, P. (2018). Skills mismatch: Concepts, measurement
and policy approaches. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(4), 985–1015.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12254
Meacham, M. (2021). AI in talent development: Capitalize on the AI revolution to transform the
way you work, learn, and live. ATD Press.
Mejia, M. (2022, October 21). Don’t confuse job satisfaction and engagement. Society for
Human Resources Management. In ERE Recruiting Conference, Nov. 7–9, 2022. Atlanta:
GA. https://www.tlnt.com/dont-confused-job-satisfaction-with-engagement/
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Josey-Bass.
Mertens, D. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. Guilford Press.
Mickahail, B. (2018). Design thinking: Problem solving in the diverse workplace: Aligning
initiatives with strategic business goals. In C. Aquino & R. Robertson (Eds.). Diversity
176

and inclusion in the global workplace (pp. 109–122). Springer International Publishing
AG.
Miller, K. (2018). Accelerating trust, inclusion, and collaboration in the workplace. Safe enough
to soar. Berrett-Koehler.
Mobley, W. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and
employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 237–240.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.2.237
Mohd Adnan, S., & Valliappan, R. (2019). Communicating shared vision and leadership styles
towards enhancing performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 68(6), 1042–1056. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/IJPPM-05-
2018-0183
Moore, R. (1999). Empowering the ESL worker within the new work order. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(2), 142–152.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40017061.pdf
Morgan, K. P. (2018). Describing the emperor’s new clothes: Three myths of educational (in-)
equity. In A. Diller (Ed.), The gender question in education (pp. 105–122). Routledge.
Morrison, E., & Milliken, F. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4) 706–725.
https://10.2307/259200
Mujtaba, F., Cavico, F., & Muffler, S. (2012). Language diversity in America: Challenges and
opportunities for management. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 77(2), 38–46.
https://www.proquest.com/language diversity in America: challenges and opportunities
for management - ProQuest
177

Nation, P., & Newton, J. (2020). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Nieto, S. (2003) What keeps teachers going? (3rd Ed.) Teachers College Press.
O’Brien, G. (2006). Oral language. In L. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, B. Saunders, & D.
Christian (Eds.), Educating ELLs: A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 14–63).
Cambridge University Press.
O’Bryan, A., Compton, L., Gutiérrez, J., & Payne, T. (2019). Scaffolding successful mobile
experiences for frontline ESL workers: An exploratory study. International Journal of
Advanced Corporate Learning, 12(3), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v12i3.11182
O’Neill, F. (2011). From language classroom to clinical context: The role of language and
culture in communication for nurses using English as a second language: A thematic
analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(9), 1120–1128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.02.008
Olivier, B. (2017). The use of mixed-methods research to diagnose the organizational
performance of a local government. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 43(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v43i0.1453
ORAI, Inc. (2021). ORAI-Improve public speaking (Version3.25.2) [Mobile app].
https://www.orai.com for desktop, ios, or Android devices
Paquette-Smith, M., Buckler, H., White, K., Choi, J., & Johnson, E. (2019). The effect of accent
exposure on children’s sociolinguistic evaluation of peers. Developmental Psychology,
55(4), 809–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000659
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health
Services Research, 24, 1189–1208.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1089059/
178

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Pelled, L., Ledford, G., & Mohrman, S. (1999). Demographic dissimilarity and workplace
inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36(7), 1013–1031.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00168
Penrod, C. (2019). A qualitative, a case study exploration of the existence of an information
technology skills gap in the context of labor market supply and demand and the labor
market segmentation theory. [Doctoral Dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Pfeffer, J. (1977). Power and resource allocations in organizations. In B. M. Staw. & G. R.
Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 77–91). Clair Press.
Phillips, P., & Phillips, J. (2017). The business case for learning: Using design thinking to
deliver business results that increase the investment in talent development. HRDQ Press
and ATD Press.
Pinto dos Santos, D., Giese, D., Brodehl, S., Chon, S., Staab, W., Kleinert, R., Maintz, D., &
Baeßler, B. (2018). Medical students’ attitude towards artificial intelligence: A
multicentre survey. European Radiology, 29(4), 1640–1646.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5601-1
Pinto, A. (2014). Networked learning: Designing for adult literacy learners. Literacy and
Numeracy Studies, 22(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.5130/lns.v22i1.4177
Pitts, D. (2009), Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from U.S.
federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 69, 328–338.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01977.x
179

Popper, S., & Wagner, C. (2002). New foundations for growth: The U.S. innovation system today
and tomorrow. Rand Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1338z0z1.htm
Poyhonen, S., Tarnanen, M., & Simpson, J. (2018). Adult migrant language education in a
diversifying world. In A. Creese. & A. Blackledge (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
language and superdiversity (pp. 488–503). Routledge.
Price-Machado, D., & Damrau, A. (1998). Ten easy things you can do to integrate workplace
basic (SCANS) into your ESL classroom: The missing link. Compass Points, 2(8).
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED425662.pdf
Rao, P. S. (2019). The importance of speaking skills in English classrooms. Alford Council of
International English & Literature Journal (ACIELJ), 2(2), 6–18.
https://www.scribd.com/document/602517086/the-importance-of-speaking-skills-in-
english-classrooms
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why
people follow. Gallup Press.
Refat, N., Kassim, H., Rahman, M., & Razali, R. (2020). Measuring student motivation on the
use of a mobile assisted grammar learning tool. PLoS ONE 15(8): e0236862.
https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0236862
Remington, T., & Yang, P. (2020). Public-private partnerships for skill development in the U.S.,
Russia, and China. Post-Soviet Affairs, 36(5–6), 495–514.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2020.1780727
Richard, J., & D'Amico C. (1997). Workforce 2020: Work and workers in the 21st century.
Hudson Institute.
180

Roberts, C. (2010). Language socialization in the workplace. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 30, 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02671905100000127
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage
Publications.
Roepe, L. (2021). Show Gratitude: Meaningful recognition doesn’t have to be expensive. HR
Magazine, 66(1), 76. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/people-
managers/pages/non-monetary-recognition-.aspx
Rosheim, Ed. (2015, November 18). Bridging the language gap leads to more productive staff.
Training Magazine. https://trainingmag.com/bridging-language-gap-leads-more-
productive-staff/
Ruck, K. (2019). Exploring internal communication: Towards informed employee voice.
Routledge.
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College
Press.
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, 507–
520. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.001
Safdari, M., & Fathi, J. (2020). Investigating the role of dynamic assessment on speaking
accuracy and fluency of pre-intermediate EFL learners. Cogent Education, 7(1),
1818924. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1818924
Sagastizado, T., Fraser-Beekman, S., Gordon, J., & Muchnick, M. (2010). A phenomenological
study of Oklahoma’s widening opportunities in the workplace program. [Doctoral
181

dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/763225472/
Salazar, M. K., & Beaton, R. (2000). Ecological model of occupational stress: Application to
urban firefighters. AAOHN Journal, 48(10), 470–479.
https://doi.org/10.1177/216507990004801005
Salkind, N., & Frey, B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (7th ed.).
Sage Publications.
Sargent, T., & Hannum, E. (2009). Doing more with less: Teacher professional learning
communities in resource-constrained primary schools in rural China. Journal of Teacher
Education, 60(3), 258–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109337279
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students
(8th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Sawyers, A. (2018, 15 October). Dealerships benefit by valuing employees; The upshot? They
stick around, boost sales. Automotive News, 93(6851), B020.
https://www.autonews.com/article/20181015/RETAIL07/181019993/dealerships-benefit-
by-valuing-employees
Scassa, T. (1994). Language standards, ethnicity, and discrimination. Canadian Ethnic
Studies, 26(3), 105–121.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/fba3725da81b9a351c6107a24eb4b0ea/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=1817720
Schein, H. E., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley
182

Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996, Spring). Creating a climate and culture for
sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90010-8
Scott-Pruitt, A., Brinkworth, C., Young, J., & Luna Aponte, K. (2018). 5 Things we learned
about creating a successful workplace diversity program. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2018/03/5-things-we-learned-about-creating-a-successful-workplace-
diversity-program
Seau, L., Azman, H., & Noor, N. (2018). A responsive pedogeological initiative for multimodal
oral presentation skills: An action research study. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of
English Language Studies, 24(2). 29–42. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2402-03
Seigyoung, A., Bulent, M., Menguc, P., Pinar, I., & Uslu, A. (2019). Frontline employee
feedback-seeking behavior: How is it formed and when does it matter? Journal of Service
Research, 22(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670518779462
Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being.
Atria Books.
Senge, P. (1990). The leaders’ new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–23. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-leaders-new-work-building-
learning-organizations/
Shahabadi, S., & Hosseinidoust, S. (2018). The impact of competitiveness on brain drain, GMM
panel approach. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11(2), 558–573.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0556-7
183

Shih, D. (2017). A theory to understand diversity and who really benefits. Code Switch.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/04/19/523563345/a-theory-to-better-
understand-diversity-and-who-really-benefits
Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–188.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Sipes, C., Hunter, K., McGonigle, D., Hebda, T., Hill, T., & Lamblin, J. (2016). Competency
skills assessment: Successes and areas for improvement identified during collaboration
between informaticists and a national organization. Studies in Health Technology and
Informatics, 225, 43–47. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-658-3-43
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1989). Multilingualism and the education of minority children. Estudios
Fronterizos, 8(18–19), 36–67. https://doi.org/10.21670/ref.1989.18-19.a02
Sloman, S., & Fernback, P. (2018). The knowledge illusions: Why we never think alone.
Riverhead Books.
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A
lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56–77.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2392766
Steele, C. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: And other clues to how stereotypes affect us. W.W. Norton
& Company.
Steers, R., & Mowday, R. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision accommodation
processes. In L. L Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(pp. 235–281). JAI Press.
Stembridge, A. (2019). Culturally responsive education in the classroom: An equity
framework for pedagogy. Routledge.
184

Stevens, F., Plaut, V., & Sanchez-Burk, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity: All-
inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44(1), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886308314460
Strack, R., Baier, J., Marchingo, M., & Sharda, S. (2014). The global workforce crisis: $10
trillion at risk. Boston Consulting Group.
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2014/people-organization-human-resources-global-
workforce-crisis
Stubbe, M. (2017). Miscommunication and work. In B. Vin (Ed.). The Routledge handbook of
language in the workplace, pp. 258–271. Routledge.
Suárez-Álvarez, J., Campillo-Álvarez, A., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., García-Cueto, E., Muñiz, J., &
Suárez-Álvarez, J. (2013). Professional training in the workplace: The role of
achievement motivation and locus of control. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16,
E35. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.19
Taylor, D. (2022, 9 February). The L&D Global Sentiment Survey. Learning Performance
Institute. https://www.thelpi.org/ld-global-sentiment-survey-2022/
Teboul, J., & Yoon, K. (2019). Other tongues at work: Foreign language accommodation in
multilingual organizations in the U.S. Howard Journal of Communications, 30(5), 371–
390. https://doi:10.1080/10646175.2018.1466745
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Employee Training. (2020, October 24). Analytics Insight.
https://bit.ly/3GhxzJT
Thomas Jr., R. R. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total
workforce by managing diversity. American Management Association.
185

Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The
affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and
integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129(6), 914–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.129.6.914
Tichy, N. (1982). Managing change strategically: The technical, political, and cultural keys.
Organizational Dynamics, 11(2), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(82)90005-5
Travis, Jr., V. (1990). Factors affecting client roles in Cornell Cooperative Extension. [Doctoral
dissertation, Cornell University]. ProQuest dissertation publishing.
Turchick Hakak, L., Holzinger, I., & Zikic, J. (2010). Barriers and paths to success: Latin
American MBA’s views of employment in Canada. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
25(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011019366
Ullman, C. (1997). Social identity and the adult ESL classroom. ERIC Digest. National
Clearinghouse for ESL Education. EDRS No. ED 413795.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED413795
U.S. Census Bureau (2020). American Community Survey: Selected characteristics of the
foreign-born population by period of entry into the U.S. U.S. Department of Commerce.
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=population%20demographics%202020&t=native
%20and%20foreign%20born&tid=acsst5y2020.s0502
U.S. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the
protection of human subjects of research. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-
policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html
186

University of Southern California’s Office for the Protection of Research Subjects. (n.d.). IRB
review: How to. https://oprs.usc.edu/irb-review/
Ushioda, E. (2016). Language learning motivation through a small lens: A research
agenda. Language Teaching, 49(4), 564–577.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000173
Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological
perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning
(pp. 245–259). Oxford University Press.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30, 6, 1024–
1054. https://doi.10.1080/01419870701599465
Vine, B. (2009). Directives at work: Exploring the contextual complexity of workplace directive.
The Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1395–1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/pragma.2009.03.001
Vygotsky, L. (1934, 2012). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2020). Learning to make a difference: Value
creation in social learning spaces. Cambridge University Press.
Wiley, T. (2008). Immigrant language minorities in the U.S. In M. Hellinger & A. Pauwels
(Eds.), Handbook of language and communication: Diversity and change (pp. 53–85).
Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198539
Wilson, G. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and inequality in the American workplace: Evolving issues.
The American Behavioral Scientist, 48(9), 1151–1156.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764205274813
187

Windeler, R. (2016). The influence of ethnicity on organizational commitment and merit pay of
IT workers: the role of leader support. Information Systems Journal, 26(2), 157–190.
https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12058
Wolfington, H. (2002). Employee communications: Exploring the perspective of employees who
use English as a second language (ESL). [Doctoral Dissertation, California State
University, Fullerton] ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/230846465/
Wright, P., & McMahan, G. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource
management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295–320.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800205
Young, R., & Faux, W. (2011). Descriptions of difficult conversations between native and
nonnative English speakers: in-group membership and helping behaviors. (Report). The
Qualitative Report, 16(2), 494–508. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ926294
Zak, P. (2017). Trust factor: The science of creating high performing companies. American
Management Association.
Zhang, Y. (2017). Walking a mile in their shoes: Developing pre-service music teachers’
empathy for ELL students. International Journal of Music Education, 35(3), 425–434.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761416647191

188

Appendix A: Participant Invitation Email/Post to Social Media
Details about the research methodology, including data collection, the target
stakeholders, participant recruitment, and data analysis, are provided in Chapter 3.

To:
From: katravis@usc.edu
Date: January xx, 2022
Re: My Dissertation Research
Are you an ELL (ELL) working in a technical role at a Fortune 500 company? If so, as a
part of my doctoral studies at the University of Southern California, I am interested in learning
more about your experience at work. If you are eligible to participate in this study, you will be
asked to complete a survey. Your answers will help me and others understand your perspective
as an ELL in a predominantly English-speaking workplace.
After completing the survey, you may participate in a supplemental 60-minute interview
via Zoom. The interview is optional. Please click here to continue if you are interested in
completing the survey.
Thank you,
Karen

189

Appendix B: Participant Survey
Welcome to the research study. I am interested in understanding the experience of ELLs
working in technology roles (programmers, analysts, data architects, project managers, etc.) for a
Fortune 500 company.
This survey should take less than 20 minutes to complete. There are no right or wrong
answers. This survey is about your experience. After completing and submitting the survey, you
will be asked if you would like to participate in a 45–60 minute interview (via Zoom).
Your participation in this research is voluntary. All responses will be kept completely
confidential. You have the right to withdraw at any point during the study. The Principal
Investigator (Karen Travis) can be contacted at katravis@usc.edu if you have any questions or
concerns.

1. Before continuing, by selecting each statement below, you acknowledge:

 My participation in this study is voluntary
 I am at least 18 years of age
 I may terminate my participation in this study at any time, for any reason
2. Please answer the following questions.

Yes No
Are you an ELL or a non-native English speaker, and English is
not your preferred language?
O O

Are you a W-2 employee of a Fortune 500 company?
O O
Have you lived in the United States for at least 24 months? O O
Is English the predominant spoken language at work? O O

190

3. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your current job?

• Extremely satisfied
• Moderately satisfied
• Slightly satisfied
• Slightly dissatisfied
• Moderately dissatisfied
• Extremely dissatisfied

4. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your ability to apply your skills and experience in
your current role?

• Extremely satisfied
• Moderately satisfied
• Slightly satisfied
• Slightly dissatisfied
• Moderately dissatisfied
• Extremely dissatisfied

5. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your ability to do interesting work in your current
role?

• Extremely satisfied
• Moderately satisfied
• Slightly satisfied
• Slightly dissatisfied
• Moderately dissatisfied
• Extremely dissatisfied

6. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your relationship with your supervisor?
Note: for this survey, we define a supervisor as the person responsible for your professional
development and for providing periodic evaluations of your work.

• Extremely satisfied
• Moderately satisfied
• Slightly satisfied
• Slightly dissatisfied
• Moderately dissatisfied
• Extremely dissatisfied

191

7. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the feedback you receive from your
supervisor?

• Extremely satisfied
• Moderately satisfied
• Slightly satisfied
• Slightly dissatisfied
• Moderately dissatisfied
• Extremely dissatisfied

8. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the amount of feedback you receive from your supervisor
regarding your overall performance?

• Extremely satisfied
• Moderately satisfied
• Slightly satisfied
• Slightly dissatisfied
• Moderately dissatisfied
• Extremely dissatisfied

9. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the amount of feedback you receive from your supervisor
regarding your overall performance?

• Extremely satisfied
• Moderately satisfied
• Slightly satisfied
• Slightly dissatisfied
• Moderately dissatisfied
• Extremely dissatisfied
192

10. Please indicate any learning opportunities your supervisor has suggested for you.

Topic In your current role For a future role
Technical Skills  
Supervisory (People) Skills  
Project/Program Management  
Oral Presentation Skills  
Writing Skills  
Time Management  
Other (please describe)  

11. How likely are you to recommend your company to a friend or colleague who is an ELL?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

12. In general, how do you feel about the learning opportunities provided by your employer?

• Extremely satisfied
• Moderately satisfied
• Slightly satisfied
• Slightly dissatisfied
• Moderately dissatisfied
• Extremely dissatisfied

Oral presentation skills are defined as your ability to speak and verbally present information in a
formal group setting. It does not include your technical skills or your ability to prepare a written
report or presentation (i.e., PowerPoint).

13. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your ability to deliver oral presentations (in
English) in your current role?

• Extremely satisfied
• Moderately satisfied
• Slightly satisfied
• Slightly dissatisfied
• Moderately dissatisfied
• Extremely dissatisfied

193

14. Specifically thinking about oral presentation skills, how do you feel about the learning
opportunities provided by your employer?

• Extremely satisfied
• Moderately satisfied
• Slightly satisfied
• Slightly dissatisfied
• Moderately dissatisfied
• Extremely dissatisfied

15. How necessary are oral presentation skills to help you advance your career and earn a
promotion?

● Extremely important
● Somewhat important
● Slightly important
● Not at all important

16. Do you belong to an employee resource group (ERG)?

• No
• Yes
• Yes-I belong to more than one ERG

17. Do you belong to a community of practice (COP)?

• No
• Yes
• Yes-I belong to more than 1 COP

194

18. What opportunities do you engage with outside of work to practice your English skills?
Select all that apply.

Description Not at
all
Less than
1 hour
per week
1–2
hours
per week
3–5 hours
per week
More than
5 hours
per week
Watching television shows,
movies, or cartoons

    
Play video games     
Attend classes in-person or
online

    
Study vocabulary and
grammar

    
Read a book, magazine, or
other publications

    
Listen to the radio or
podcasts (songs or
spoken content)

    
Talk out loud to yourself     
Other     

19. Before answering questions 20–29, here are some important definitions.

Diversity recognizes that individuals are different based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, abilities, language, and other criteria.

Inclusion is the idea that everybody feels welcomed, appreciated, and involved in the
workplace.

Equity is the idea that the organization provides proper support and resources to each person.
Depending on the circumstances, a person may receive different resources, training, or
support. It is important to note that equity is different from equality. Equality means
everyone would have access to the same resources, regardless of their circumstances.

195

20. Thinking about diversity, please rate the following statements.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
My supervisor
values diversity

O O O O O O
My department/
team values
diversity

O O O O O O
My company/
organization
values diversity
O O O O O O

21. Thinking about diversity, please rate the following statements.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
My Supervisor
understands that
diversity is
critical to our
future success

O O O O O O
My department/
team understands
that diversity is
critical to our
future success

O O O O O O
My company/
organization
understands that
diversity is
critical to our
future success
O O O O O O

196

22. Thinking about diversity, please rate the following statements.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
My supervisor invests
time and energy into
building diverse
teams

O O O O O O
My department/
team invests time and
energy into building
diverse teams

O O O O O O
My company/
organization invests
time and energy into
building diverse
teams
O O O O O O

23. Thinking about inclusion, please rate the following statements.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
I feel my unique
background and
identity are valued by
my supervisor

O O O O O O
I feel my unique
background and
identity are valued by
my department/team

O O O O O O
I feel my unique
background and
identity are valued by
my company/
organization
O O O O O O
197

24. Thinking about inclusion, please rate the following statements.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
My supervisor makes me
feel like I belong

O O O O O O
My department/team
members make me feel
like I belong

O O O O O O
My company/organization
makes me feel like I
belong
O O O O O O

25. Thinking about inclusion, please rate the following statements.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
I feel respected by my
supervisor

O O O O O O
I feel respected by my
department/team
member
s

O O O O O O
I feel respected by my
company/organization
O O O O O O

198

26. Thinking about equity, please rate the following statements.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
My supervisor makes the
career advancement and
promotion processes
transparent to all
employees

O O O O O O
My department makes the
career advancement and
promotion processes
transparent to all
employees

O O O O O O
My company/organization
makes the career
advancement and
promotion processes
transparent to all
employees
O O O O O O

199

27. Thinking about equity, please rate the following statements.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
My supervisor provides
people from all
backgrounds and a
range of identities with
equitable opportunities
to advance their careers

O O O O O O
My department provides
people from all
backgrounds and a
range of identities with
equitable opportunities
to advance their careers

O O O O O O
My company/
organization provides
people from all
backgrounds and a
range of identities with
equitable opportunities
to advance their careers
O O O O O O

28. Thinking about equity, please rate the following statements.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
I feel respected by my
supervisor

O O O O O O
I feel respected by my
department/team
members

O O O O O O
I feel respected by my
company/organization
O O O O O O

200

29. Thinking about equity, please rate the following statements.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
My supervisor makes me
feel supported in my
career growth

O O O O O O
My department makes me
feel supported in my
career growth

O O O O O O
My company/organization
makes me feel
supported in my career
growth
O O O O O O

30. Have you experienced any unwelcome comment(s) or conduct that you felt was offensive,
embarrassing, or hurtful? Check all that apply.

Inappropriate
Jokes
Slurs or
Derogatory
Comments
Rumors/
Hurtful
Gossip
Isolating
Behaviors
Other I have
not
From my supervisor

     
From my department
or team members

     
From others in my
company/
organization
     

31. Have you experienced any discrimination (i.e., unfair, harmful, or adverse treatment)
because you are an ELL? Check all that apply.
Yes No
From my supervisor  
From my department or team members  
From others in my company/ organization  

201

32. Do you believe you have been passed over for a promotion because you are an ELL?

• Yes
• No

Demographic Data
33. How many languages do you speak?

• One (1)
• Two (2)
• Three (3)
• Four (4)
• Five (5) or more

34. What languages do you speak fluently? Check all that apply.

 Arabic  Chinese  English  French  Greek
 Hindi  Japanese  Mandarin Chinese  Portuguese  Russian
 Spanish  Other (please specify)

35. Approximately how many years have you spoken English?
(number field formatted to accept only a whole number)

36. How old were you when you learned to speak English?
(number field formatted to accept only a whole number)

37. What language do you prefer to speak outside of work with friends and family?
(text field)

38. How comfortable are you speaking English?

• Extremely uncomfortable
• Moderately uncomfortable
• Slightly uncomfortable
• Slightly comfortable
• Moderately comfortable
• Extremely comfortable

39. What language did you learn to speak first? (text field)

40. What country were you born in? (text field)

202

41. What best describes your job responsibilities?

• I am an individual contributor (programmer, analyst, database architect,
project/program manager, etc.)
● I am a Team Leader (people report to you, but you do not hire, fire, or determine
compensation)
● I am a Supervisor/Manager/Leader (people report to you, and you hire, fire, and
determine compensation or promotions)
● Other, please describe (text field)

42. How long have you been in your current role?

● Less than 1 year
● 1–2 years
● 3–4 years
● 5 or more years

43. What industry do you work in?

• Alternative Energy
• Construction
• Consulting/Professional Services
• Energy, Oil & Gas
• Food Service
• Health Care
• Media/Entertainment
• Pharmaceuticals/Life Sciences
• Real Estate
• Retail
• Technology
• Transportation
• Other (please describe)

44. Please indicate your educational achievements.

Completed In Progress Attended in the U.S.
High School Diploma   
Bachelor’s Degree   
Master’s Degree   
Doctoral program (Ph.D., Ed.D.)   
Professional Degree (JD, MD, DDS, etc.)   
Other professional credentials or licenses   

203

45. What is your gender?

● Male
● Female
● Transgender
● Non-Binary
● I prefer not to disclose
● Other (please describe)

46. What is your age?

● Under 25
● 25–34
● 35–44
● 45–54
● 55 or older

47. How many people live in your household?

● Children under 18 living in your household (enter a whole number from 0–100)
● Adults over 65 living in your household (enter a whole number from 0–100)
● Adults age 19–64, including you, in your household (enter a whole number from 0–
100)

48. Are you the primary income earner in your household?

• Yes
• No

49. What is your relationship status?

• Never Married
• Married
• Widowed
• Divorced
• Separated
• In a domestic partnership

204

50. Race/Ethnicity (select one or more)

 American Indian or Alaska Native. (A person having origins in any of the original
peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains
tribal affiliation or community attachment.)

 Asian. (A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East,
Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China,
India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and
Vietnam.)

 Black or African American. (A person having origins in any of the Black racial
groups of Africa. Terms such as “Haitian” or “Negro” can be used in addition to
“Black or African American.”)

 Caucasian/White. (A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe,
the Middle East, or North Africa.)

 Hispanic or Latino. (A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central
American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.)

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. (A person having origins in any of the
original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.)

 Other (please describe)

Note. The U.S. Census Bureau (2020) provided demographic categories and descriptors.

Thank you for your time in completing the survey. Your honest and candid answers are
greatly appreciated. If you are interested in learning more about this study or participating in an
optional one-on-one interview via Zoom, please enter your email below or contact me (Karen
Travis) at katravis@usc.edu. Interview participants will receive a $25 gift card.
When you are done, please click Next to record your responses.

205

Appendix C: Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me today. My goal is to understand your experience
as an ELL (ELL) working in a technology role at a Fortune 500 company. I will incorporate your
perspective and ideas into my doctoral dissertation at the University of Southern California. My
dissertation will provide organizations with ideas and recommended practices for building
institutional systems, known as equity, specifically designed to support ELLs. I expect today’s
interview will take approximately 60 minutes. I sincerely appreciate your time and your candid
feedback.
All your answers are confidential, including company names, titles, and other data
collected as a part of this process. The final presentation will only include aggregated,
anonymous data that cannot be associated with you or your employer.
Before we begin, I would like to record this Zoom meeting so I can focus on our
conversation. Is that okay? (pause) At any time, please ask me to stop the recording if you do not
feel comfortable. Before we begin, do you have any questions or concerns? (pause) Thank you.
I will delete the meeting recording as soon as I have transcribed our meeting notes. Also,
I will send you a copy of our interview transcript if you wish. So, with your approval, let’s get
started. I am going to being with some basic information. Today is (day), (date). It is currently
(time) Eastern Time. I am interviewing (study participant name), who works for (company).
(First name) is currently located in (city, state). All right, let’s focus on you. (pause) I would like
to learn more about you.

206

1. What led you to a job in technology?
a. What is your job, and what do you like most about it?
b. Is there anything you do not like about your job?
2. Thinking about work, what would you like to be doing in 3–5 years?
a. What skills will be essential to achieve your career goals?
b. What responsibility does your employer have to help you achieve your future career
goals? Do you think your employer will help you achieve your goals?
c. What is your responsibility to achieve your goals?
3. Outside of work, what will help you or prevent you from achieving your goals?
Thank you, this is helpful information. Are you okay to continue?
4. Thinking about your workplace experience, do you feel like you fit in and belong?
a. What makes you feel like you do or do not belong and fit in at work?
Before I ask the next question, I would like to remind you that the remaining questions focus on
equity. Equity is defined as providing opportunities that may be different depending on the needs
of an individual rather than offering everyone the same training or intervention. Is the difference
between equal and equity or equitable clear to you?
5. Thinking specifically about opportunities for career advancement and promotion:
a. Is to process for career advancement and promotion clear to you?
b. Do you feel supported in your career growth at your company?
c. Do you think people from all traditions and cultures, and identities have opportunities
to advance their careers?

d. Specifically, do you think your heritage, culture, and background are valued?

207

Now I would like to get your perspective on potential solutions that would increase
opportunities for career advancement and promotion, specifically for ELLs. Dream big; any idea
is a good idea.
6. Does your company’s learning and development team currently offer programs that you think
are especially helpful for ELLs? Are they unique to ELLs or offered to everyone?
7. Pretend that someone from HR wants to interview you. They tell you they are creating some
programs specifically for ELLs. They want to know what they can do to help you and other
ELLs be more effective. What are your top three ideas for HR?
Does your supervisor do something particular that you think is important for ELLs? Is it
unique or specific to ELLs? Why is it important?
Thank you! We have made it to the end. I appreciate your time and for supporting me in
my research. If you have any questions or concerns in the future, you have my email and phone
number.
208

Appendix D: Detailed Cost Benefit Analyses
For all recommendations, the cost of conflict and turnover, based on the literature and
assumptions described here, are shown in Tables D1 and D2. For recommendations 1 and 2,
MALL-AI software is purchased at the end of Year 0, so inflation (3%) is not applied in Year 0.
For recommendations 1 and 3 it is assumed that human resources (HR), learning and
development (L&D), and information technology (IT) can support these recommendations
without additional personnel costs. A justification for each recommendation, a summary cost-
benefit analysis, and ROI were presented in Chapter Five.
The estimated annual salary for 100 highly skilled technical professionals in Year 1 is
$15 million. The annual turnover rate is assumed to be 10% compounded, year-over-year, and
the annual cost of turnover is estimated at 1.5 times employees’ salary. It is assumed that time
lost in conflict can be reduced by 5% year-over-year. The value of time devoted to practicing
with MALL-AI software, for non-work-related activities, is assumed to be 1 hour per month or
$86,538 for 100 professionals.

Table D1
The Decreasing Cost of Conflict
Year Annual savings $750,000 Baseline lost productivity
1 37,500 712,500 Reduced 5% from the prior year
2 52,013 660,488 Reduced 5% from the prior year
3 82,231 578,257 Reduced 5% from the prior year
Total $171,743

209

Table D2
The Decreasing Cost of Turnover
Year Annual savings $5,700,000 Baseline turnover rate
1 570,000 5,130,000 34%
2 587,100 4,617,000 31%
3 604,713 4,155,300 28%
Total 1,761,813

Table D3
Costs to Establish a Community of Practice With MALL-AI for ELLs
Recommendation 1: Cost estimate
Year Type Amount Description
0 HR start-up cost 0 One-half FTE to launch new ERG
Software license 3,999 MALL-AI for presentation skills
1 Lost work time 86,538 Work time for ERG participation
Software license 3,999 MALL-AI for presentation skills
2 Lost work time 89,135 Work time for ERG participation
Software license 3,999 MALL-AI for presentation skills
3 Lost work time 91,809 Work time for ERG participation
Total

$283,478

210

Table D4
Benefits to Establish a Community of Practice With MALL-AI for ELLs
Recommendation 1: Benefit estimate
Year Type Amount Description
0 Personnel

Reduced turnover
Personnel

Reduce conflict
1 Personnel 570,000 Reduced turnover
Personnel 37,500 Reduce conflict
2 Personnel 587,100 Reduced turnover
Personnel 52,013 Reduce conflict
3 Personnel 604,713 Reduced turnover
Personnel 82,231 Reduce conflict
Total

$686,944

Table D5
Costs to Provide MALL-AI for Presentation Skills
Recommendation 2: Cost estimate
Year Type Amount Description
0 Software license 3,999 MALL-AI for 100 employees
Lost work time

Work time devoted to skills practice
1 Software license 3,999 MALL-AI for 100 employees
Lost work time 43,269 Work time devoted to skills practice
2 Software license 3,999 MALL-AI for 100 employees
Lost work time 44,567 Work time devoted to skills practice
3 Software license 3,999 MALL-AI for 100 employees
Lost work time 45,904 Work time devoted to skills practice
Total

$149,737

211

Table D6
Benefits to Provide MALL-AI for Presentation Skills
Recommendation 2: Benefit estimate
Year Type Amount Description
0 Personnel

Reduced turnover
Personnel

Reduced conflict
1 Personnel 285,000 Reduced turnover
Personnel 18,750 Reduced conflict
2 Personnel 293,550 Reduced turnover
Personnel 26,006 Reduced conflict
3 Personnel 302,357 Reduced turnover
Personnel 41,115 Reduced conflict
Total

$343,472

Table D7
Costs to Establish an Employee Resource Group Focused on ELLs
Recommendation 3: Cost estimate

Type Amount Description
Year 0
HR startup cost 0 One-half FTE to launch new ERG

Software license

MALL-AI for presentation skills
Year 1
Lost work time 86,538 Work time for ERG participation

Software license

MALL-AI for presentation skills
Year 2
Lost work time 89,135 Work time for ERG participation

Software license

MALL -AI for presentation skills
Year 3
Lost work time 91,809 Work time for ERG participation
Total

$267,482

212

Table D8
Benefits to Establish an Employee Resource Group Focused ELLs
Recommendation 3: Benefit estimate
Year Type Amount Description
0
Personnel

Reduced turnover

Personnel

Reduced conflict
1
Personnel 171,000 Reduced turnover

Personnel 11,250 Reduced conflict
2
Personnel 176,130 Reduced turnover

Personnel 15,604 Reduced conflict
3
Personnel 181,414 Reduced turnover

Personnel 24,669 Reduced conflict
Total

$206,083

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Given the labor shortage of highly skilled technical professionals in the United States and the influx of English Language Learners (ELLs) to address this, and predictions for this trend to continue and accelerate, organizations must provide equity to harness the full potential of ELLs. Equity focused on ELLs will deliver increased profitability, innovation, and organizational climate improvement opportunities. The study population comprised ELLs working in technology roles at Fortune 500 companies in January and February 2022. In total, 23 ELLs completed a 50-question survey, and seven completed a 1-hour interview. Based on survey data, participants speak 16 languages (other than English) and represent all generations in the working population from 18–65. Overall, 17% of respondents spoke three or more languages, including English, 38% were born in the United States, and 62% were born outside the United States in seven different countries. Then, 50% of respondents indicated they prefer speaking English with family and friends even when not at work. ELLs participating in this study are highly educated, with 20% holding a doctoral degree, 60% holding a master’s degree, and 20% holding a bachelor’s degree. Participants were supervisors, team leaders, and individual contributors. The study intentionally excluded senior-level executives. The research and the literature indicate that organizations must create equity focused on ELLs. In particular, surveys and interviews identified oral presentation skills as an area of interest for ELLs. The study presents five recommendations, including creating a community of practice focused on building ELLs’ presentation skills. The literature and a cost-benefit analysis support the recommendations as methodologically sound and cost-effective, offering organizations opportunities to improve bottom-line results.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Influences that impact English language acquisition for English learners: addressing obstacles for English learners’ success

PDF

Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement

PDF

Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

Examining the achievement gap of seventh grade English language learners: A gap analysis

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity

PDF

Instructional proficiency strategies for middle school English language learners

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of secondary school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

Building capacity in homeroom teachers to support English language learners

PDF

Arts integration for standard English learners: implications for learning academic language

PDF

Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners

PDF

Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis

PDF

School leader impact on equitable grading practices to support middle school English learners

PDF

Examining the lack of equity in leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the pharmaceutical industry

Asset Metadata

Creator Travis, Karen Anne (author)

Core Title Building equity for English language learners: technology employees in Fortune 500 companies

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 12/12/2022

Defense Date 08/15/2022

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

Tag artificial intelligence,Discrimination,diversity,ecological systems model,English as a Second Language (ESL),English language learner (ELL),equity,Fortune 500 companies,global economy,highly-skill professionals,inclusion,labor shortage,language discrimination,language standards,mobile-assisted language learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,technology

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Min, Emmy J. (committee chair), Krop, Cathy Sloane (committee member), Moore, Ekaterina (committee member)

Creator Email karen@travisusa.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112619729

Unique identifier UC112619729

Identifier etd-TravisKare-11355.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-TravisKare-11355

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Travis, Karen Anne

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20221213-usctheses-batch-995 (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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