Native Language-Only Job Ads Are Just Discrimination In the Guise of Quality Control
Okay. Bear with me. If someone is fluent, can do the work, and communicates clearly, why on earth are we still demanding “native language proficiency” in a lot of jobs?
Short answer: we shouldn’t be. In 99% of roles, “native only” isn’t a quality standard, it’s a iron gate.
The Myth of “Native” = Better
“Native” sounds objective. It isn’t. It’s a proxy for comfort and sameness. It tells immigrants and multilingual pros: we don’t trust you, even when your skills and results say otherwise.
Fluency is what gets work done: clear meetings, precise emails, sound decisions, respectful relationships. “Native” is not a skill. It’s a birth condition.
When “Native Only” Quietly Becomes Discrimination
Look at where this shows up: office jobs, blue-collar roles, internal-facing teams. No public poetry. No courtroom briefs. No national broadcast scripts. Just… meetings, docs, Slack, customers, colleagues.
Requiring “native” here does three things:
Shrinks the talent pool (and then we complain about shortages).
Signals bias (“we hire people like us”).
Punishes multilingualism—the very asset global companies claim to value.
So… When Is “Native” Legit?
It’s a short list. Really short.
Precision prose that’s public-facing: brand copywriting, literary editing, top-tier journalism, national ad slogans.
Statutory language work: legal drafting that must conform to local idiom, legislation, or precedent.
Specific performance demands: acting roles where the character requires a native accent.
High-stakes, idiom-heavy representation: prime-time news anchoring, comedic writing reliant on local wordplay.
Notice what’s missing? Most corporate roles. Most operational roles. Most customer roles. Most tech, finance, consulting, healthcare, education roles. If you can communicate clearly at C1-ish fluency, you can do the job—and do it well.
“But We’re Norwegian at Work”
Great. Then measure Norwegian fluency, not nativeness. Ask for B2/C1 (or equivalent) and assess it like any other skill, with tasks.
Need patient-facing nurses or doctors? Test comprehension, clarity, and bedside communication.
Need project leads? Test meeting facilitation and written summaries.
Need sales? Test discovery calls, objection handling, and proposals.
“Native” is lazy screening. Task-based assessments are real screening.
Objection Playbook (And Better Reframes)
“Work should be in Norwegian.” Absolutely, so hire fluent professionals and support growth to C1. “Native” won’t run your business. Fluency will.
“Clients expect perfect language.” Clients expect outcomes, clarity, and trust. Use editorial reviews for final polish where needed. Stop using nativeness to outsource management.
“It’s about cultural nuance.” Then train it, pair people, and build review loops. Culture is learned. Nativeness is inherited.
What Smart Employers Do Instead
Specify proficiency, not birthplace: “Norwegian C1 required; English B2 a plus.”
Use work samples, not vibes: role-play calls, write a recap, draft a short note, present a decision.
Edit the Job Description: replace “native” with “fluent” and the tasks that prove it.
Support language as a skill: paid classes, mentoring, feedback on docs, time to practice.
Pair and review: bilingual teams, buddy systems, lightweight copy checks for external materials.
Track outcomes: retention, customer loyalty, cycle time, error rates, not accent anxiety.
The Leadership Test
This isn’t a language debate. It’s an inclusion test. If your bar is “native,” your bar is actually “people like me.”
Raise it.
Ask for fluency. Assess the work. Support the growth. Hire the talent you keep saying you can’t find.
“Native” is a passport. “Fluent” is a skill. Hire skills.
P.S. This sits right at the heart of my broader theme: inclusion is a capability, not a concept. If you’re wrestling with job language, send me a Job Description, and I’ll show you how to rewrite it for fluency, fairness, and better hires.
