Abstract
Purpose:
This study examines how English-related expectations shape employee subjectivities in a globalizing Korean corporate workplace, focusing on the intersection of language ideology, power, and institutional practice.
Design/methodology/approach:
The study adopts a qualitative approach informed by linguistic governmentality and Park’s ideology complex.
Data and analysis:
Data consist of narrative frames collected from 24 employees and bilingual semi-structured interviews with five participants working in a Korean manufacturing company. The data were analyzed using a paradigmatic narrative procedure, involving iterative coding and thematic development to examine how employees interpret English-related expectations and how these experiences shape subjectivity.
Findings/conclusion:
The findings show that English functions simultaneously as symbolic capital and a disciplinary mechanism, producing stratified subjectivities through processes of responsibilization, self-surveillance, and affective labor. Employees navigate ambiguous and uneven language expectations, resulting in differentiated access to recognition, participation, and advancement.
Originality:
The study extends research on workplace English by integrating linguistic governmentality with Korea-specific language ideologies in an adult corporate context, demonstrating how global language regimes are locally rearticulated through affect, evaluation, and institutional ambiguity.
Significance/implications:
The study contributes theoretically to scholarship on language, neoliberalism, and subject formation, and offers practical implications for corporate language policy by highlighting the need for clearer, role-specific language expectations and institutional responsibility for multilingual support in both Korean and global workplace contexts.
Introduction
Neoliberal ideology has established itself within South Korean political and corporate circles as a response to a series of social, political, and economic transformations that prompted a gradual decline of the state-centered model of governance in the 1980s (Park, 2010). The Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, coupled with the intervention of the International Monetary Fund, further accelerated South Korea’s (hereafter Korea) alignment with neoliberal principles in an effort to create a more globally competitive society (Song, 2011). Under Korean neoliberalism, the workplace underwent significant restructuring, privileging individual competitiveness over corporate loyalty, promoting short-term contracts over lifetime employment, and fostering a culture that expects continual self-improvement from workers (Hundt, 2015).
Within this changing employment landscape, English has emerged as a critical commodity, its value tied to its role as the global language of business, science, and politics, and acquiring recognized English competence has become essential for Koreans to position themselves as desirable employees capable of meeting the evolving demands of national and corporate leadership (Park, 2009). This linguistic shift forges new relationships between English, language ideologies, and Korean identity.
Within Korean society, English competence is discursively framed as vital to economic and political survival, producing what Park (2009) terms the ideology of necessity, in which individuals are compelled to invest in English to avoid disadvantage across social domains. Within this ideological environment, English “competence” has shifted from abstract knowledge to socially constructed assessments tied to identity and status (Park, 2010). Standardized tests like TOEIC, and OPIc (Oral Proficiency Interview–computer), a standardized, computer-delivered oral English proficiency assessment widely used in South Korea for employment and promotion purposes, reflect this shift but have been criticized for failing to predict real-world communicative ability (Gwon & Yun, 2005). In response, companies now use in-house interviews to assess practical skills. Park (2011) argues that this ongoing redefinition, driven by the private sector, perpetually problematizes English proficiency, reinforcing linguistic hierarchies through constant reinvention of assessment tools.
The ideology of necessity functions within a broader ideological complex that includes externalization and self-deprecation (Park, 2009). Externalization frames English as inherently foreign, denying the possibility of integrating English into Korean linguistic identity (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004). It reinforces essentialist notions of Korean belonging tied exclusively to the Korean language, underpinned by a belief that language adoption cannot be coerced. Complementing this, the ideology of Self-Deprecation reflects a pervasive belief among Koreans that they inherently lack English proficiency, further compounding the social tensions surrounding English use. Together, these ideologies create a contradictory and contested linguistic landscape that shapes how English is perceived, learned, and evaluated within Korean society.
Although Park’s (2009) ideological complex of necessity, externalization, and self-deprecation was developed in youth-oriented and semi-institutional environments, subsequent research shows that the same ideological mechanism, or English imagined as essential for mobility, competitiveness, and national survival, extends globally throughout modern society and is particularly salient in adult professional contexts. English proficiency has been shown to shape employees’ access to managerial relationships, perceptions of evaluation fairness, promotion opportunities, and wage outcomes (Peltokorpi, 2023). Ideological pressures have been documented in multinational workplaces globally. Research shows that English proficiency shapes employees’ access to managerial relationships, internal networks, and promotion pathways, creating power asymmetries and prompting feelings of inadequacy or illegitimacy among those with lower English competence (Neeley, 2017; Tietze, 2008; Vaara et al., 2005). More recent studies indicate that English mediates perceptions of performance evaluation fairness, wage progression, and career satisfaction in adult workplaces across diverse national contexts (Peltokorpi, 2023). Taken together, these findings demonstrate that necessity-oriented English ideologies are not confined to Korean educational spaces but form part of broader neoliberal language regimes structuring adult subjectivities and workplace interactions.
This study draws on the concept of linguistic governmentality to examine how English functions as a mechanism of governance within Korean corporate structures. It focuses on the tensions employees experience as they navigate the ambiguity surrounding the role of English in a company that projects a global identity while operating within local linguistic norms. Specifically, the study addresses two key research questions: (1) How do Korean employees navigate the ambiguity surrounding the role of English in a global Korean company? and (2) How does this ambiguity influence the development of their subjectivities in the workplace? In doing so, the study contributes to emerging scholarship on the intersection of language ideologies, neoliberalism, and subject formation by highlighting the emotional, ideological, and institutional dimensions of English use in professional life in Korea.
Literature review
Governmentality and the moral imperative of self-regulation
One starting point for understanding linguistic governmentality is Foucault’s concept of governmentality itself, particularly in relation to how individuals are shaped to regulate their behavior in neoliberal systems. Placing responsibility on individuals to constantly improve reflects governmentality (Foucault, 2008), a means of state control that shapes behavior by guiding thought and action. Governmentality combines governance and mentality, referring to modes of power that operate through the shaping of thought, behavior, and self-understanding rather than through direct coercion. A key aspect of governmentality is the conduct of conduct, through which power works not only in a top-down manner but via institutions, discourses, and everyday practices that guide how individuals regulate themselves (Foucault et al., 1988). In this process, power and knowledge are mutually constitutive: particular forms of knowledge legitimize specific modes of governance, which in turn regulate populations by encouraging self-monitoring, self-improvement, and responsibilization.
Language as a mechanism of governmentality
Building on this foundation, recent work has examined how language itself becomes a key site of neoliberal control (Del Percio, 2018; Rojo, 2018; Rojo & Del Percio, 2019; Urla, 2019). The concept of linguistic governmentality reframes language not only simply as communication but also as a technology for the production of governable subjects. Linguistic governmentality highlights how language knowledge functions as a mechanism for governing individuals by shaping their actions, identities, and capacities for self-regulation. Language is not merely a tool for communication but operates as a central axis through which social actors are positioned and governed within broader regimes of power. The ways in which languages are imagined, or abstracted from the diverse practices through which they are enacted, serve to classify individuals, with language practices and ideologies profoundly shaping subjectivities (Dlaske et al., 2016; Urciuoli, 2016). These insights are particularly relevant in contexts like Korea, where English operates as a global resource but is mediated through strong national ideologies of language and identity. In contemporary societies, linguistic practices are deeply intertwined with existing power relations, with language ideologies reinforcing and legitimizing social hierarchies and systemic inequalities (Blommaert, 2010; Lippi-Green, 2012). Moreover, in the context of globalization, linguistic resources are increasingly commodified and differentially valued, linking language practices directly to the exercise of economic and political power (Barakos, 2016; Pennycook, 2002). This articulation of language as both a means and object of governance reflects broader shifts in the nature of work and labor under late capitalism, where individuals are called into being as self-regulating “language workers” responsible for cultivating and managing their linguistic repertoires in ways that align with market logics and neoliberal ideals of flexibility, productivity, and competitiveness (Barakos, 2016; Dlaske et al., 2016).
Neoliberal restructuring of language learning
How linguistic governmentality plays out in educational contexts helps illuminate similar mechanisms in professional settings like the one under investigation here. Rojo’s (2019) discussion of linguistic governmentality in Madrid universities exemplifies how neoliberal rationality shifts the focus from external governance to the internal regulation of the self, “from how subjects are governed from without to how they govern themselves from within” (p. 177). Within this framework, language education is restructured not only simply as a pedagogical endeavor but also as a mechanism of neoliberal governance, where technologies of power, including normalization, self-surveillance, internal and external accountability, and responsibilization (Dean, 2009; Rose, 2000) guide students’ behavior (Rojo, 2019; Rojo & Del Percio, 2019).
Responsibilization refers to a mode of governance in which individuals are encouraged to take personal responsibility for managing risks and meeting institutional expectations that were previously addressed collectively (Dean, 2009; Rose, 2000). In neoliberal workplace contexts, language proficiency becomes framed as an individual obligation rather than an organizational responsibility, leading employees to engage in self-monitoring, self-improvement, and self-blame in relation to English use. Such techniques operate through both institutional discourse and student subjectivities, fostering what Rojo (2019) terms the “self-made speaker,” a subject who internalizes the market value of language and takes up the entrepreneurial task of self-enhancement (p. 176).
A key aspect of this transformation lies in how the value of English is naturalized through discourses of employability and global competitiveness (Peltokorpi, 2023). Students do not simply learn English; they invest in it as “language capital,” believing it will enhance their marketability. This belief is often framed as freely chosen and individualized, reinforcing the neoliberal trope that success (or failure) is a personal responsibility rather than a systemic outcome (Rojo & Del Percio, 2019). Even their autonomy in choosing how to learn English, via online apps, study abroad, or informal immersion, is embedded in a logic of responsibilization, where the institution steps back, and students become managers of their own linguistic progress (Peltokorpi, 2023).
Self-surveillance becomes a key disciplinary mechanism. Students compare themselves against native-speaker norms and the idealized fluent professional, measuring their progress with apps, rankings, test scores, and public performances. These practices reflect technologies of the self, in which individuals perform continual work on themselves to conform to societal expectations (Foucault et al., 1988; Rojo & Del Percio, 2019). The result is a speakerhood shaped not only just by competence but also by a performance/pleasure apparatus: students strive for affective satisfaction and social legitimacy, aligning self-realization with market success (Rojo & Del Percio, 2019).
Global contexts of linguistic governmentality and worker subjectivities
Several scholars have extended these ideas across diverse global contexts, illustrating how neoliberal governance restructures linguistic subjectivities in both state and corporate domains (Barakos, 2016; Cameron, 2000; Dlaske et al., 2016; Piller & Takahashi, 2013). Subject formation is deeply entangled with state-defined language policies and broader neoliberal rationalities that position workers as self-regulating agents. For example, within the context of Japanese heritage language education, volunteer teachers are discursively constructed as human capital, internalizing state-driven narratives that frame their linguistic and cultural labor as voluntary contributions to the national imaginary abroad (Dlaske et al., 2016). In parallel, language policies in the private sector in Wales reveal how bilingual workers are simultaneously empowered and regulated, as bilingualism becomes a commodified skill strategically mobilized within corporate discourses of customer service and identity management (Barakos, 2016). Across these cases, the shaping of subjectivities operates along a continuum of governmental influence. As Urciuoli (2016) observes, worker subjectivity can be more loosely or tightly organized depending on the degree of linguistic regulation, ranging from the scripting of language tasks (Cameron, 2000) to the strategic valuation of specific linguistic skills within corporate and institutional hierarchies. Piller and Takahashi (2013) further demonstrate the emotional and psychological consequences of linguistic governmentality through the experiences of Japanese airline stewardesses, whose employment hinged on their Japanese linguistic and cultural capital rather than individual professional achievements. Subjected to English-only policies and constant linguistic surveillance, these workers faced racial and linguistic marginalization, restricted career advancement, and emotional strain, revealing the exploitative conditions underlying seemingly prestigious employment.
Despite such contextual variations, commonalities persist across neoliberal settings: language workers are framed through ideologies of ownership, wherein linguistic competence is imagined not only merely as a communicative tool but also as an individual asset to be cultivated, managed, and deployed within larger organizational or national projects (Urciuoli, 2016). In this way, linguistic governmentality produces subjects who are responsibilized for their own linguistic capital, positioning them within broader regimes of value that sustain globalized hierarchies.
English, globalization, and subjectivity in Korea
Research reveals how language policies and ideologies function as tools for managing labor, constructing worker identities, and embedding individuals within neoliberal economic and racial hierarchies (Barakos, 2016; Cameron, 2000; Dlaske et al., 2016; Piller & Takahashi, 2013). In workplace contexts, this means that language expectations operate as indirect mechanisms of governance, shaping how workers are evaluated, how they understand their own competence, and how responsibility for success or failure is individualized. However, little attention has been paid to how these dynamics unfold within Korea’s rapidly globalizing corporate sector, where English holds competing symbolic and material meanings. Korea provides a particularly revealing context for examining workplace language ideologies because English occupies a highly institutionalized and moralized position in relation to employability, advancement, and national competitiveness, even when its functional necessity in everyday work remains ambiguous (Park, 2009). In companies that claim global status, English is often positioned simultaneously as a marker of cosmopolitan competence and as a gatekeeping mechanism that reshapes hierarchies of power and belonging (Kim, 2021). This combination of strong ideological pressure, uneven workplace application, and limited institutional language support creates fertile conditions for examining how linguistic governmentality and competing ideologies shape worker subjectivities. These theoretical perspectives provide the foundation for examining how Korean employees interpret and respond to the ambiguous role of English in a workplace shaped by both globalizing imperatives and entrenched local ideologies. In what follows, the study draws on this conceptual framework to analyze employee narratives within a Korean company positioned as globally competitive.
Theoretical framework
This study draws primarily on the concept of linguistic governmentality (Rojo, 2018; Urla, 2019), which examines how language functions as a technology of power that disciplines subjects, regulates behavior, and produces particular forms of selfhood within neoliberal regimes. Through this lens, English is not only a communicative resource but also a mechanism through which workers come to monitor, evaluate, and shape themselves in relation to institutional expectations and global norms.
To contextualize how linguistic governmentality takes shape in Korea, the analysis also incorporates Park’s (2009) ideological complex of necessity, externalization, and self-deprecation. While Park’s framework was originally articulated in youth-oriented environments, research has shown that such ideologies circulate widely across global adult workplace experiences as well. In this study, Park’s (2009) framework is used not only as a standalone theory but also as a culturally and historically specific manifestation of the broader governmental processes through which English becomes tied to value, moral obligation, and professional legitimacy. Together, linguistic governmentality provides the overarching analytic lens, while the ideology complex offers a Korea-specific articulation of how power, identity, and English proficiency intersect in everyday workplace practices.
Methodology
The context of the study
The workplace is a branch of a major energy development company in Seoul. This global company produces eco-friendly energy products and has branches in various countries and a multilingual website. Recruitment advertisements highlight the advantage of knowing English, and participants noted that English proficiency increased their chances of being hired. Proof of proficiency varied, with some providing accredited test scores (e.g., OPIc and TOEIC) and others undergoing multiple tests and interviews in English. English competency was a clear requirement from the start. The company also offers free language courses for employees, including telephone lessons and small group discussions, although availability is limited. Employees who sign up but fail to attend the required number of lessons must reimburse the company.
Participants
Using non-probability sampling (Dornyei, 2011), participants (pseudonyms employed) were invited based on characteristics relevant to the study’s focus on English-mediated workplace practices. Eligibility criteria included being a current employment at the company during the data-collection period, having regular engagement with English in their work tasks (e.g., communicating with expatriate managers, writing emails or reports, participating in English-medium meetings, or using English-based documentation), and having a willingness to participate in both the narrative frame activity and a semi-structured interview. No minimum TOEIC score or formal proficiency threshold was required, as the goal was not to evaluate participants according to predetermined language benchmarks, but rather to capture the diverse ways employees at different levels of English competence experience, negotiate, and respond to workplace language ideologies and expectations. This approach aligns with qualitative inquiry into subjectivity and linguistic governmentality, which prioritizes participants’ lived experiences over standardized proficiency measurement. Twenty-four participants were recruited in total, beginning with one known contact, Jiny. Initial conversations with Jiny revealed that employees were expected to learn additional languages to better communicate with international clients, an indication of linguistic governmentality in the workplace. Jiny distributed consent forms, bio-data sheets, and narrative frames to colleagues. These frames, offered in both Korean and English, were revised based on Jiny’s feedback. While most participants provided brief responses and declined follow-up interviews due to time constraints, five participants who offered detailed narratives agreed to be interviewed. Conducted bilingually, these interviews provided valuable insight into how participants navigated language use at work.
The five interviewees held diverse roles and experiences. King, a project manager, relied on TOEFL scores to gain employment and regularly uses English in meetings. Janet, an engineer, takes English classes via her phone and uses translation tools to manage client communication. Kai, recruited as “global talent,” studied in the United States and now verifies client claims in English. Jiny uses English for technical presentations and was hired after an English interview. Jess, a new hire, submitted OPIc scores and prepared for future English use with company classes. Together, their experiences illustrate how English proficiency shapes workplace roles and identities.
Data collection
Data collection included consent forms, biographical questionnaires, and narrative frames (see Appendices 1 and 2) distributed via Google Forms. The narrative frames, in English and Korean, prompted participants about their stay abroad, English competence, work experience, and workplace English usage, allowing them to share their “stories of experience” (Barkhuizen & Wette, 2008). Following the narrative frames, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted bilingually with five selected participants, based on their consent and the depth of their narrative frame responses. Conducting the interviews in both Korean and English allowed participants to express themselves as comfortably and precisely as possible.
Data analysis
Data analysis began during the collection of the frames and while conducting the interviews, establishing an iterative and deductive process where the narrative frames motivated questions for the semi-structured interviews (Mann, 2016). Interview questions were generated from the frame responses, which were semi-structured in nature, allowing for divergences from the questions where needed. The researchers independently examined the data before collaborating to identify key patterns and insights. This process involved a degree of co-construction, with researchers interpreting the emerging narratives (Barkhuizen et al., 2014), reflecting the subjective nature of the research (Dornyei, 2011). The narrative analysis engaged a paradigmatic procedure for reading and coding the data to explore how employees navigate language-related ambiguities and how these experiences shape their subjectivities (Barkhuizen, 2014).
During initial coding, segments of text that reflected participants’ experiences of English expectations, workplace pressures, emotional responses, or identity negotiations were highlighted and assigned descriptive codes. These codes stayed close to the data (e.g., “fear of email mistakes,” “pressure to improve English alone,” “seeking recognition from foreign managers,” “feeling inferior to native speakers,” and “avoiding English meetings”). Then, codes were grouped into broader conceptual categories through constant comparison. For example, codes such as “feeling judged on English,” “correcting oneself constantly,” “fear of being evaluated,” and “not speaking unless perfect” were clustered into the category self-monitoring and self-discipline. Codes such as “English needed for promotion,” “managers prefer English speakers,” “English as standard for professionalism,” and “lost opportunities due to English” were grouped into English as institutionalized requirement.
Through iterative movement between data, categories, and the theoretical framework, these categories were then developed into themes that illuminated the mechanisms of linguistic governmentality and Park’s ideology complex.
Findings and discussion
The following section presents and analyzes the narratives of five Korean employees working in a company that promotes itself as a global enterprise. Drawing on the conceptual lens of linguistic governmentality and Park’s (2009) framework of competing English ideologies, the analysis explores how employees navigate the ambiguous and often contradictory expectations surrounding English in the workplace. The discussion is organized thematically around the emergence of stratified subjectivities (the uneven positioning of individuals within institutional hierarchies), affective labor (the emotional and psychological work individuals perform to manage feelings, dispositions, and self-presentations in response to institutional demands), and the ideological tensions between local and global language norms. These findings illuminate how English functions not only as a communicative tool but also as a mechanism of self-regulation, differentiation, and identity negotiation in the neoliberal workplace.
Misaligned language expectations and affective labor in the workplace
One aspect of subjectivity in the workplace emerges from the misalignment between expectations set during the hiring process and the actual linguistic demands of employees’ daily work. Job advertisements often present English as advantageous rather than essential, creating a paradox when, in practice, English proves to be a routine requirement for tasks such as client communication and document review. While examined here in a Korean corporate context, similar misalignments between recruitment discourse and everyday language demands have been documented in multinational workplaces, where English is framed as desirable yet functions as a de facto condition for participation and advancement (Neeley, 2017; Peltokorpi, 2023). Despite workers’ proactive efforts to demonstrate English proficiency, through test scores or overseas experience, the gap between initial institutional messaging and workplace realities illustrates how neoliberal ideologies obscure the true nature of linguistic expectations (Neeley, 2017; Peltokorpi, 2023). This misalignment is central to how workers experience and negotiate their linguistic subjectivities.
Drawing from Rojo and Del Percio (2019), the concepts of normalization, self-discipline, and internalization, technologies of power in the Foucauldian sense, help to understand how workers take on responsibility for acquiring English proficiency, often interpreting these demands as free choice (Cameron, 2000; Urciuoli, 2016). This reflects neoliberalism’s broader project of responsibilizing individuals for their own employability (Dean, 2009; Rose, 2000), portraying English not only as a collective resource to be supported by the institution but also as a personal investment. Similarly, the idea of “languaging the worker” (Dlaske et al., 2016) describes how workers are shaped into governable subjects through discourse and institutional practices that construct language as both a skill and a moral attribute of the ideal employee.
Park’s (2009) framework of competing ideologies offers further insight into Korean workers’ complex and often contradictory relationship with English. The ideology of necessitation compels individuals to view English as essential for success. Externalization allows blame to be placed on external factors (e.g., schooling), while self-deprecation fosters a sense of inherent inadequacy. Together, these ideologies create psychological tension as individuals strive to meet expectations that are often vague, shifting, or unevenly applied. These ideological tensions echo findings in other global contexts, where English proficiency becomes entangled with feelings of inadequacy, shame, and moral worthiness (Neeley, 2017; Piller & Takahashi, 2013).
Janet’s experience illustrates the intersection of these forces. Despite uploading documentation of English proficiency during her application, she was not required to complete an English interview. Yet, in her actual work, she frequently engages with English texts and foreign clients, relying on translation tools and facing communication difficulties.
아 그 뭐지 우선 그 공고가 났을 때 거기에서 이제 영어를 해쓰 그 영어 가능자 우대라는표현을써요.
Oh well, first of all, when the announcement comes out, they use the expression that those who can speak English are given preference.]
. . . 그 때 나는 이제 그 증명되 는 서류를 같이 업로드하는 거였어요.
If (I) have the English score, then I could upload the certificate document together (with the application)]
Alright. So, did you have to do an interview in English?
No, not really . . . but if some people have to communicate with oversea companies, they have to speak English or some languages. [Interview]
Janet’s narrative reflects how the normalization of English as a job “advantage” mask its necessity in practice. This fosters a form of self-surveillance, where Janet monitors and critiques her own perceived linguistic shortcomings:
Ok so when you’re looking at documents from overseas and they are all in English, how comfortable are you with using those documents and understanding those documents?
I always translate with google translate . . . and sometimes I got in the meeting with our customer who is a foreigner with English sometimes I thought I want to ask question some question or it’s feel I’m feel very hard to speak in English this meeting room because sometimes I feel, I thought it, am I understand, and I understand wrongly, or sometimes so I feel afraid so sometimes I just pass my question and after finishing meetings I just ask my co-workers in Korean so it’s a little bit uncomfortable when I have a meeting with a customer. [Interview]
Her hesitancy to speak, use of Google Translate, and post-meeting debriefing with Korean-speaking colleagues are examples of the affective and cognitive burden that English places on her. These affective responses around anxiety, self-doubt, and fear of misunderstanding demonstrate how linguistic governmentality operates at the level of emotion and subjectivity (Rojo & Del Percio, 2019). Similar patterns have been identified in studies where workers avoid English interactions due to fear of miscommunication or negative evaluation (Tietze, 2008; Vaara et al., 2005).
Jiny’s experience aligns with Janet’s but with additional complexity due to his hiring process, which included an English interview. His recollection of that experience points to the evaluation of affective dimensions such as motivation and eagerness, which further supports Rojo’s (2019) notion of the “self-made speaker,” a subject whose commitment to language learning is seen as a marker of neoliberal virtue.
English interview so the foreigners just try to ask several questions and then we have to deal with that and we also shows our eager. So, for example when I enter this company or I prepared something for accomplishing something. So they test our eager and motivations. And that interview . . . was conducted in English. [Interview]
Despite successfully completing an English interview, Jiny continues to feel discomfort during client interactions. His concerns center on pronunciation and field-specific vocabulary:
Uh . . . I think it is hard for me with the pronunciation differences from the foreign company people. Yeah. And the other point is the terms, the specific terms. They have specific terms, but the terms are very picky, so I don’t know what that word means. [Interview]
Jiny’s comments illustrate how English proficiency is not only a static requirement but also an ongoing demand that, globally, workers must continuously manage (Vaara et al., 2005). The ideology of self-deprecation (Park, 2009) is evident in Jiny’s sense of inadequacy, and the persistence of self-monitoring shows how deeply the expectations have been internalized. For both Jiny and Janet, linguistic governmentality manifests as emotional labor, where anxiety, hesitation, and even shame become integral to the experience of being a professional in a globalized workplace.
Jess’s case further underscores the inconsistency of language assessment. She encountered English-related requirements later in the recruitment process, but the nature of those assessments, abstract and unrelated to job-specific content, highlighted the symbolic value of English rather than its functional role. The hiring process served more to evaluate her general communicative persona than her technical knowledge.
아, 아, 그 제가 이거 여기? 면접 여러 개가 있었는데 최종 면접에서 영어 성적을 물어봤었고 그리고 그전에 그전에 면접 때 중에 영어 면접이 있었어요.
Oh, so, I . . . here . . . There were several interviews, and in the final interview, I was asked about my English score, and before that, among many interviews, there was an English interview.]
아예 프리 토킹을 하는 프리 토킹인지? 그냥 예를 들면은? 뭐 나 자신의 표현을 할 수 있는 단어 다섯 가지를 대라 이런 식으로. 해서 한 뭐 네다섯 문제 정도 내주셔가지고 그 20분 동안 제가 이제 대답 영어로 대답을 해야 되는 면접이 있었어요.
There was (an interview) where we did free talking . . . Just for example . . . Well, tell me five words that express who you are, something like that. So, they gave me about four or five questions, and so, during 20 minutes, there was an interview where I had to answer in English.]
네 맞아요. 약간 예를 들면은.또 지금 생각나는 문제가? 내가 동물이 되고 싶다면 어떤 동물 되고 싶냐 이런 걸 보았어요, 그렇게. 되게 좀 어떤 뭔가 뜬금없는 약간.
Yes, that’s right. One more example. Another question that comes to my mind right now? If I wanted to be an animal, what kind of animal would that be, like that. Something like, something out of the blue.] [Interview]
These abstract English assessments, unrelated to engineering, create ambiguity about the role of English within the company. This disjunction between job content and evaluation contributes to inconsistent internal messaging about language expectations and complicates employees’ understandings of what counts as competence, a pattern that has been identified in multinational workplaces where English is symbolically assessed despite its uneven relevance to everyday work (Peltokorpi, 2023). As Rojo and Del Percio (2019) argue, such ambiguity enables the company to shift accountability to individuals, reinforcing the idea that employees must continually prepare for unpredictable linguistic demands.
Jess further reflects on the cultural normalization of English in Korean society:
영어는. 뭔가? 그냥 제 친구들도 다 학교에 다니고 학원에 다니고. 한국인들 기본적으로 다 그냥 필수 필수 조건이라 생각을 하잖아요. 영어 공부 어렸을 때부터 공부를 해야 된다. 그래서 약간 취미로 하듯이 영어학원 다녔었던 것 같아요.
English. So . . . It’s just that all my friends (used to) go to school and go to private academies. Basically, all Koreans think that it is just a necessity. Studying English. You have to study English from an early age. So, I think I went to an English academy, like as a hobby.]
근데 그때 이제 변별력을 가지는 게 영어인 것 같아요. 영어를 좀 잘하면 승진은 모르겠는데 영어 잘하는 사람이 한국에서는 유독 영어 잘하는 사람이 돋보이는 것 같더라고요. 좀.
But at that time, I think English has the ability to differentiate. I don’t know if you can get promoted if you speak English well, but it seems that people who are good at English stand out in Korea a little] [Interview]
Her reflections show how deeply the ideology of necessitation has been internalized, where English is positioned as both a default expectation and a form of symbolic capital. Jess’s early exposure to English, framed as a hobby, evolves into a professional imperative as she moves into the workforce. This trajectory illustrates how neoliberal values of self-optimization are embedded from a young age, shaping workers’ linguistic subjectivities long before they enter the job market.
These narratives, Janet’s anxiety, Jiny’s self-surveillance, and Jess’s ambivalence, reveal how linguistic governmentality operates at the intersection of recruitment, ideology, and affect. They show how English is used not only as a tool of communication but also as a moral and emotional filter through which employees evaluate themselves. In doing so, they echo broader findings on language-related workplace tensions in globalized contexts, underscoring the need to view English not only merely as a skill but also as a socio-affective terrain where identities, hierarchies, and anxieties are continuously negotiated (Piller & Takahashi, 2013).
Linguistic stratification, recognition, and workplace hierarchies
The data reveal the emergence of competing subjectivities within the company, between employees who align with the company’s bi/multilingual expectations and those who do not. Alignment is not solely based on job title or rank; rather, it emerges through the performance of linguistic practices during team communication (TC) meetings and in interactions with international clients. Employees who meet these expectations gain recognition and enhanced opportunities for promotion, reflecting findings from multinational workplace research showing that English competence is positively associated with promotion, wage increases, and career encouragement (Peltokorpi, 2023; Vaara et al., 2005). In contrast, those who fail to meet the company’s linguistic norms are marginalized in workplace interactions, as Jiny explains:
Basically, basically, the person who can speak English or any other language proceeds the TC. The person who don’t, who cannot speak English well, then they just prepared the material, but they just only participate the meeting but they usually just sit behind.
So then is there any benefit to having the communication role during the TC?
Of course, of course. No matter what their role level is. The normal role level exists but the person who leads the telecommunications well and they . . . they can get good reputations from the other coworkers and the person who can speak English and who can lead the whole project . . . are acknowledged by the coworker. Then the persons have benefits, for example, 돈 돈 돈
Money, money, money]. [Interview]
Such patterns mirror findings in multinational workplaces where English proficiency determines participation, leadership, and recognition in meetings, often marginalizing employees with lower proficiency regardless of formal rank (Neeley, 2017; Tietze, 2008; Vaara et al., 2005). This also aligns with research showing that corporate language competence operates as symbolic capital, reshaping perceptions of competence, intelligence, and leadership in multinational organizations (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999; Peltokorpi, 2023; Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012). The concept of the self-made speaker (Rojo, 2019) highlights how recognition is contingent on visible self-regulation and performance of a neoliberal, multilingual subjectivity. Those who lead meetings and manage English communication embody the company’s ideal worker; agentive, adaptable, and globally fluent.
The organization reinforces these hierarchies through a grading system that evaluates employees in part on their English usage. Grades range from S (“Superior”) to NE (“Need Effort”), and these rankings directly impact compensation. This system operates as a technology of power (Rojo & Del Percio, 2019), promoting both self-surveillance and peer surveillance, as employees monitor themselves and others in a highly competitive environment.
평가 같은 경우에는 [Translation: When it comes to evaluations] end of the year the employee receive kind of grade. Depends on how much work done 올해 [Translation: this year]. So there are three grades: S, G, Need Effort. So the top, the top 10% can get S and the 80% of people seven or 70% or 80% people can get G and the lower 10% people can get the Need Effort. But the person who get S the 위에 [Translation: top] have a 그 연봉 [Translation: uhm, yearly income] percentage가 훨씬 높아 [Translation: is a lot higher]. [Interview]
In this neoliberal configuration, language becomes a quantifiable asset tied to merit and self-worth. The company’s language grading system reshapes subjectivity by conditioning employees to see themselves and others through the lens of linguistic performance and productivity (Dlaske et al., 2016). King’s observations reinforce this stratification:
For some of them, they can’t answer the question directly by themselves and you know, they always use the translator for their answer. And yeah, also I have, yeah, I had the impression that they don’t get all the points of the comments of our customer without translation. [Interview]
Those unable to perform English fluently are marked as linguistically dependent and symbolically peripheral, revealing the hierarchization of subjectivities based on English fluency. Similar forms of linguistic dependency and peripheral participation have been documented in multilingual workplaces, where limited English proficiency constrains access to knowledge, interaction, and influence (Lauring & Klitmøller, 2015; Tietze, 2008). This division reflects a broader process of languaging the worker, in which only certain communicative identities are recognized and valorized, while others are rendered less visible and less legitimate within organizational hierarchies (Dlaske et al., 2016). Employees like King and Kai, who align with the company’s desired subjectivity, perceive their language skills as instrumental for advancement. King imagines leveraging his technical and linguistic capital by moving into more externally facing departments:
Do you think that now that you’re in the job, being fluent in English, or in other languages is connected with promotion within the company?King: Yeah, so when I stay in the R&D sector and this benefit would be lower I guess, but I can also change the departments within my company, for example, and when I go to marketing, for example, with my technical knowledge plus the foreign language fluency, I think yeah, that could be a good yeah chance for me. [Interview]
Kai’s reflections show how language-based recognition intersects with education and global experience. As someone educated in the United States, Kai embodies the company’s ideal of “global talent.” Unlike domestically educated employees, Kai may not experience the ideology of self-deprecation as strongly (Park, 2009). His ease with English is not just functional but shapes his access to roles and responsibilities beyond what his junior rank would usually allow.
Yes, even though I’m a junior and I’m a rookie, I said I would say the company has given me a lot of roles and responsibilities and I had to lead a lot of projects.
OK. So just to confirm, you are given this extra responsibility because of your . . .
Because of language? Probably, I would say about, I would say that.
Do you believe there is a clear link between other language proficiency and promotion?
I would say yes. Umm. I think you have to be good at either English or Chinese, but English has a heavier weight. [Interview]
Further to this is how studies reveal that local employees with strong English proficiency often gain influence and responsibilities beyond their formal roles due to language-based access to expatriate managers and global work processes (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999; Peltokorpi, 2023; Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012). Kai’s experience exemplifies how such language-based access, when combined with educational capital, facilitates the construction of a neoliberal subjectivity grounded in global mobility and linguistic flexibility. In this configuration, English operates not only as a communicative resource but also as a marker of employability, adaptability, and readiness for transnational work, aligning closely with the figure of the self-regulating, “global” worker described by Rojo (2019).
By contrast, other employees, like Janet and Jess, grapple with a misalignment between personal language resources and workplace expectations, resulting in self-surveillance, anxiety, and limited participation in high-value tasks. Janet’s earlier experience of navigating meetings with translation tools, and her hesitation to speak, underscores the emotional toll of linguistic insecurity. Jess, meanwhile, sees English as essential not only just for performance but also for visibility and differentiation:
영어는. 뭔가? 그냥 제 친구들도 다 학교에 다니고 학원에 다니고. 한국인들 기본적으로 다 그냥 필수 필수 조건이라 생각을 하잖아요 . . .[ Translation: English . . . well, you know? All of my friends went to school and to academies. Basically, Koreans all think of it as just a basic requirement, right?]
영어를 좀 잘하면 . . . 영어 잘하는 사람이 한국에서는 유독 영어 잘하는 사람이 돋보이는 것 같더라고요. [Translation: People who are good at English . . . it seems like in Korea, those who are good at English really stand out.] [Interview]
These dynamics reflect broader findings that English competence structures internal hierarchies, career encouragement, and promotion in multinational subsidiaries, producing differentiated subjectivities and uneven access to opportunity (Neeley, 2017; Peltokorpi, 2023; Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012). At the same time, participants’ accounts echo the ideologies of necessitation and self-deprecation (Park, 2009), through which English is normalized as a prerequisite for success while speakers internalize doubts about their own capabilities. The company’s language practices amplify this contradiction: even when English is not central to a role’s core functions, its symbolic importance remains high. As a result, employees actively navigate this ambiguity through adaptive strategies, identity negotiations, and affective responses, while their subjectivities are shaped through the entanglement of institutional discourses, peer recognition, grading systems, and internalized ideologies of language and worth. Together, these accounts show that subjectivity in the global Korean workplace is not merely a product of English use, but of how language is imagined, surveilled, and rewarded. Linguistic governmentality thus operates simultaneously as a mode of discipline and distinction, structuring not only how workers perform but also how they come to see themselves and others within the corporate hierarchy.
Ambivalent bilingualism and the influence of perceived globality
A further layer of complexity in how Korean employees navigate English in the workplace involves their reluctance to self-identify as bilingual, despite frequent use of English in their roles, a finding that parallels other contexts (Neeley, 2017; Tietze, 2008). This tension signals the influence of linguistic governmentality on subject formation, where English is treated not only as part of one’s identity but also as a utilitarian, external skill (Dlaske et al., 2016; Urciuoli, 2016). As Park (2009) argues, the ideology of externalization positions English proficiency as something acquired from outside the self, limiting its integration into one’s subjectivity. This internalized ideology contributes to employees distancing themselves from bilingual identities, even when performing tasks that require multilingual competencies.
Janet’s response exemplifies this disconnect. English is used selectively and functionally among colleagues, mostly for technical terminology (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999; Tietze, 2008), while interpersonal exchanges remain in Korean. This practice contributes to a workplace environment where English functions as a technological language, reserved for task-specific utility rather than a shared linguistic identity.
When you’re with your colleagues, your workmates, do you use English?
No. Between us? No, just Korean. Because they are all Korean.
But like when you’re talking about specific engineering topics, do you . . .
Uh. Some words we just use English but when we talking just with Korean.
For example, what kind of word would you use in English but not in Korean?
Like some parts of parts name, parts name. It’s like case lower, upper, and cells and some are resistance, simulation, yeah. [Interview]
Janet’s selective use of English, limited to object names or technical references, supports the claim that English is not viewed as part of the employees’ linguistic identity, but rather as an instrumental code for corporate communication. This contributes to fragmented subjectivities, where employees disassociate their daily linguistic labor from broader notions of bilingualism or global speakerhood (Dlaske et al., 2016; Rojo, 2019).
Moreover, perceptions of the company’s global legitimacy further influence how employees relate to English and how they perceive the value of their linguistic skills (Neeley, 2017; Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012). While the company promotes a global image, employees interpret this status differently, either embracing or resisting the narrative, which in turn impacts how they internalize their language practices.
Kai expresses skepticism about the company’s global status, noting that it lacks brand recognition abroad and operates mostly in B2B contexts:
Not, not around the world, because our business is mostly B2B, business to business. So it’s not B2C, so customers may not know. And none of them my American friends did not know about, haven’t heard about SK unless they studied the batteries. [Interview]
Similarly, Jiny’s remark that the company occupies only a small market share in the vehicle battery sector, and Jess’s statement that the company does not “feel” global, reveal their detachment from the company’s global narrative:
Yeah minor company. Yeah so they. This so, they changed the portfolio from the oil, the petroleum to the vehicle battery. So that they occupied 5%, I’m not sure, I’m not sure the exactly the portions but I I remember the 4% or 5% of the market share that our company, my company occupied 5%, 4%, or 5% of the vehicle battery market share.
아, 사실 이제 뭐 글로벌하다 막 이러곤 하는데. 제 체감으로는? (참) 이제 한국인인데 한국 회사다 보니까 그냥. 안 느껴지는 것 같아요.
Ah, to be honest, (they) say (it’s) global and all. But based on my actual feelings(?) since (I am) Korean and (this is) a Korean company, it doesn’t feel so.] [Interview]
Such skepticism impacts subjectivity formation by undermining the global relevance of English, relegating it to a narrow, job-specific function rather than a marker of international belonging or opportunity (Tietze, 2008; Vaara et al., 2005). This diminished valuation of English proficiency may contribute to the reluctance to identify as bilingual or global professionals.
In contrast, employees who affirm the company’s global orientation, like King and Janet, report feeling more confident in the global utility of their linguistic capital, reinforcing a stronger, more integrated multilingual subjectivity (Neeley, 2017; Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012):
Because we have multiple factories abroad, so in China, Hungary, and also in the United States now and we have, yeah, it’s most of the customers are from abroad. [Frame]
Because we usually we work with oversea companies. And also our main customers, so oversea companies and many our branch in oversea. It’s like the United States and Hungary. I think we are globalized. [Interview]
These employees express a positive alignment between their language use and professional identity, perceiving English as central to their role in international collaboration. Their acceptance of the company’s global narrative strengthens their sense of purpose and reinforces neoliberal ideals of self-actualization through language (Rojo & Del Percio, 2019).
This divergence in perception reveals that employee subjectivities are shaped not only by linguistic ability but also by beliefs about the organization’s position within the global economy. Those who doubt the company’s global scope may experience alienation or underutilization of their language skills, leading to more localized subjectivities with limited aspiration. Conversely, employees who see themselves as participants in a genuinely global enterprise tend to display greater linguistic confidence and professional ambition, aligning with the figure of the “entrepreneurial language worker” whose value is tied to mobility, adaptability, and self-capitalization (Dlaske et al., 2016). Similar dynamics have been observed in multinational workplaces beyond the Korean context, where alignment with corporate global imaginaries shapes how employees interpret the significance of English and its relevance to their future trajectories (Neeley, 2017; Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2012).
This pattern illustrates how employees navigate the ambiguity surrounding English through both practice and belief, reconciling organizational claims of globality with the uneven and sometimes contradictory realities of their everyday work. Such ambiguity is characteristic of globalized corporate environments, where English functions simultaneously as a symbol of international belonging and as a localized, task-specific resource. As a result, perceptions of global positioning play a crucial role in either empowering or constraining linguistic identities, shaping how workers understand their place within organizational hierarchies and global labor markets more broadly (Rojo & Del Percio, 2019).
Ultimately, these findings reinforce how linguistic governmentality operates through both discourse and perception, shaping not only how workers use English but also how they see themselves as workers in relation to language, legitimacy, and global belonging. They navigate not only linguistic demands but also the affective terrain of recognition, marginalization, and aspiration, key components in the production of contemporary multilingual subjectivities in a neoliberal, globalized workplace.
Conclusion and implications
Linguistic governmentality operates through technologies of power such as internalization, normalization, and self-surveillance that regulate employee behavior (Rojo, 2018; Rojo & Del Percio, 2019). Employees internalize English as essential, despite it being presented as optional during hiring, a contradiction that mirrors patterns observed in globalized workplaces where language expectations are deliberately underspecified, shifting responsibility onto individual workers. This creates tension for individuals like Janet and Jiny, who, although deemed competent at entry, struggle with English in real-time tasks. These struggles contribute to interpersonal tensions, especially as higher English proficiency appears linked to promotion, reflecting broader tendencies in multinational organizations where language functions as a proxy for competence and leadership.
Employees monitor their own language skills and engage in self-capitalization by voluntarily joining English training, even without explicit pressure. This reflects neoliberal values of autonomy and self-improvement, reinforcing the idea that linguistic competence is a personal responsibility, a logic widely characteristic of contemporary labor regimes beyond the Korean context. Yet, the company’s mixed messaging, which suggests English is both necessary and optional, generates confusion and reinforces unequal outcomes.
Employees educated abroad, like King and Kai, show greater confidence and align with a subjectivity that sees English as valuable for personal growth, rather than as a marker of the company’s global status. In contrast, Korean-educated employees often internalize competing ideologies of necessity and self-deprecation (Park, 2009), creating a conflicted bilingual identity. This divergence highlights how access to linguistic and educational capital shapes subjectivity formation across global labor markets, even as it takes locally specific forms.
The findings, therefore, suggest several practical implications for companies seeking to reduce language ideology conflicts in Korean and other globalized workplace contexts. First, organizations should make English requirements explicit and role-specific during recruitment, avoiding vague descriptors that mask English as an unspoken prerequisite. Second, performance evaDluation systems should be reviewed to ensure that English proficiency is not implicitly treated as a proxy for merit or leadership unless it is demonstrably central to job performance. Third, responsibility for English development should shift from individual employees to the institution, through embedded language support and the normalization of multilingual practices in everyday work. Finally, companies should critically align global branding with internal realities, as inflated global narratives can undermine the legitimacy of English use and intensify employees’ ambivalence toward language expectations. Together, these measures address the ideological tensions of necessitation, self-deprecation, and externalization identified in this study and offer concrete pathways for fostering more equitable and inclusive multilingual workplaces.
Footnotes
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Seed Program for Korean Studies of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the Korean Studies Promotion Service at the Academy of Korean Studies (AKS-2024-INC-2230001).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.