Code-switching at work

By Rupa Mooker on 8 January 2026

If you have ever changed your voice in a meeting to sound “more professional,” softened an accent during an interview, or avoided certain phrases so you’re not labelled “too informal,” you have already touched the edges of code-switching. Across UK workplaces, code-switching is often an invisible skill used to fit in and gain credibility. Yet, adapting to avoid bias can affect wellbeing and authenticity and potentially limit access to equality of opportunity.

What is code-switching?

Code-switching is the practice of adapting language, behaviour, appearance, or mannerisms to meet the perceived expectations and norms of a dominant workplace culture. It is commonly used to describe shifting between dialects or linguistic styles, such as moving between a regional accent and a more standardised form of English. It can also encompass changes in vocabulary, tone, dress, body language, and self-presentation on topics like cultural background or personal identity.

Examples include a professional from a working-class background moderating their accent in client meetings to avoid stereotypes, a Sikh downplaying religious needs to dodge awkward questions or a LGBTQ+ colleague changing pronouns to avoid being “othered.” The common thread is anticipating bias or misunderstanding and pre-emptively adapting to minimise risk.

The lived experience

Let’s consider “Anya,” a high-performing analyst working in a London firm. In team chats, she is expressive and funny. In client meetings, she lowers her voice, flattens her accent, slows her speech, laughs less and quietly takes notes. When asked by a colleague why she is so different in front of clients, she jokes about being “professional,” while wondering if her natural voice would be judged as less credible. Over time, constant self-monitoring becomes a second job sapping energy and authenticity. To make things worse, Anya notices that colleagues who speak more freely build relationships faster and seem to be rewarded for it. Her workplace is not intentionally penalising her but unwritten rules about what “professional” looks and sounds like exert a powerful pull, creating unequal outcomes.

Equality Act 2010 essentials

The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation in the workplace based on “protected characteristics,” including race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, and others. Within the context of code-switching, several concepts are particularly relevant:

1. Race as a protected characteristic – race includes colour, nationality, and ethnic or national origins. While accent alone is not a protected characteristic, unfair treatment closely linked to race or nationality can cross into unlawful discrimination. For example, penalising a Nigerian accent may, depending on the facts, be less favourable treatment because of race or national origin. Stereotyping a South Asian colleague’s communication style and excluding them from client facing roles could amount to discrimination if linked to ethnic or national origins.
2. Direct and indirect discrimination – direct discrimination is treating someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic. Indirect discrimination arises when an apparently neutral policy or practice puts people with a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared with others, and the employer cannot justify it as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. A policy insisting on a “standard professional tone” without clear, objective criteria could, in practice, disadvantage those with accents or speech patterns tied to race or nationality. If that practice disproportionately impacts a racial group and isn’t objectively justified, there is a risk of indirect discrimination.
3. Harassment – harassment is unlawful when unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. Persistent jokes, mimicry, or remarks about someone’s accent or how they talk can constitute harassment where they relate to race or nationality. Even isolated comments can be serious if sufficiently severe.
4. Victimisation – employees are protected from being treated badly because they have made or supported a discrimination complaint. If an employee raises concerns about pressure to tone down their identity and then experiences detrimental treatment as a result, legal risk escalates.

Common risk factors include:

• recruitment and promotion processes that privilege certain speech styles
• performance feedback penalising cultural communication differences without objective justification
• “banter” about accents or “fitting in” that creates a degrading environment
• dress or grooming standards that indirectly target cultural or religious expressions.

Professionalism standards are legitimate when linked to role requirements and applied consistently and objectively. Problems arises when “professionalism” becomes a proxy for assimilation to a dominant norm, effectively telling people that career success requires suppressing culturally linked aspects of identity.

Practical impacts on people and performance

Individuals who code-switch carry a higher cognitive load, which reduces focus and creativity. Psychological safety declines when people worry about being judged for how they speak or present. Teams then lose out on diverse perspectives as colleagues conform to a single communication style and morale and retention suffer.

There are also performance management implications. If visibility and influence are gained more easily by those who communicate in a dominant style, pipelines may skew away from diversity at senior levels. Leadership diversity can then appear to “prove” that a narrow style is needed for success, further entrenching bias. The goal is not to outlaw any standard of communication or discourage adaptation. The aim is to ensure that standards are objective and inclusive so individuals are not forced to leave their identity behind to access opportunity.

The following approaches support a genuinely inclusive culture:

1. Have clear role requirements – where a role genuinely requires specific communication competencies such as clarity under pressure or explaining complex ideas to clients, define these objectively and behaviourally. Avoid criteria that implicitly target accent. Replace vague phrases like “sounds polished,” with measurable behaviours like “summarises issues concisely and checks understanding.”
2. Review recruitment and promotion processes for bias – structured interview processes with diverse panels and clear scoring criteria reduce room for subjective judgments about being “the right fit.” Train panels to distinguish between communication style and communication effectiveness.
3. Strengthen anti-harassment and dignity at work policies – make it clear that jokes related to accent or cultural expressions are unacceptable. Ensure safe reporting channels and that issues are addressed promptly and sensitively.
4. Equip managers with practical guidance – many managers want to help but lack the skills to do so inclusively. Train them to focus on content and outcomes rather than style. For example, instead of “You need to sound more professional,” managers might say, “For executive audiences, keep the opening to two minutes and frame with the decision required.”
5. Support belonging and authenticity – employee networks, mentoring, and sponsorship can provide safe spaces and visibility for diverse communication styles. Highlight role models who succeed without suppressing identity. Leaders can normalise diverse accents and styles by platforming them.
6. Use data and feedback – track patterns in performance ratings, promotion outcomes, and attrition across demographic groups. Survey employees about psychological safety and whether they feel pressure to code-switch and use the insights to refine policies and training.

Navigating nuance

The “benefits” of code-switching can feel real as there may be smoother interactions and fewer awkward moments. However, the invisible costs such as stress and less psychological safety accumulate. There is a balance to be struck. Everyone adjusts to context – it is part of being an effective professional. But when career progression depends on conforming to “norms” unrelated to performance, organisations should pause and recalibrate to articulate standards clearly and evaluate performance against what matters most for the role.

Code-switching is not simply a personal preference. It is a cultural signal about how safe people feel to belong, and how inclusive a workplace really is. Creating an environment where people do not have to choose between success and self is not just good compliance, it is good business.

View more Equality Law articles from d&i Leaders

HR & Employment Law Summit 2026
25 March – London

The People Leaders HR & Employment Law Summit is a unique event designed specifically for in-house HR and people related professionals, along with colleagues working in employee relations and legal teams, looking to gain valuable insights into how to navigate the evolving legal environment and ensure policies and practices are up to date.

Our agenda features 12 expert speakers who will provide critical updates and commentary on the landmark Employment Rights Bill and other relevant UK employment law, along with examples of best practice and workplace compliance, to help you future proof your organisation.

View details and book your place.

---

d&i Leaders is a global community of senior diversity, inclusion and HR focused professionals, looking to collaborate, network and accelerate their workplace inclusion strategy.

• Download our free practical reports
• Watch free on demand video content
• Become a free community member and join 20,000+ others
  
• Browse our d&i Leaders Supplier Directory
• View our forthcoming diversity and inclusion events