Stammering/Stuttering and the Potential for Prejudice and Discrimination in the Workplace
(Author’s note: an edited and shorter version of this post is available on Medium here)
In the context of the recent — and very welcome — discussion around prejudice and discrimination linked to fundamental personal characteristics such as race, sexuality and gender identity, the topic of this short article (potential prejudice and discrimination linked to a speech impediment) may seem somewhat trivial. I am not, however, seeking to draw any comparisons between, nor am I attempting to claim any degree of equivalence between, the different kinds of prejudice and discrimination that persist today. Indeed, it would be foolish — if not explicitly discriminatory in itself — to deny that there are hierarchies of prejudice and discrimination. Instead, I want to highlight a condition — stammering (also known as stuttering) — that is, to my mind, frequently overlooked when we consider diversity in the workplace.
Stammering/stuttering as a diversity issue
If anyone doubts that this is a diversity issue, studies have demonstrated that stammering can be a significant barrier to a person’s employment prospects (Hurst and Cooper, 1983(1)) and that people who stammer are at risk of systemic discrimination at work (Butler, 2014). Further, many employers hold negative attitudes towards people who stammer (Hurst and Cooper, 1983(2)). This can result in a lower chance of being recruited to fill a vacancy and, when in a role, the chances of being promoted. In a 2004 study by Klein and Hood examining the impact of stammering on job performance and employability, 70% of the 232 participants agreed that stammering reduced a person’s chances of being employed or promoted, 33% considered that their stammering had interfered with their job performance and 20% had taken a decision to reject a job or promotion because of their stammering. Finally, people who stammer often do not think they achieve their potential and, instead, can consider themselves as having had to ‘settle’ for jobs below their skill level due to their stammering (Butler, 2014).
As a practising lawyer, I also want to draw attention to the potential for prejudice in the legal industry due to its demand for so-called effective communication skills. Of course, many of the points I make will apply to other professional services roles, and some of those points derive from research findings on stammering and employment prospects generally. While I rarely regard my own stammer (which is significantly less severe than many other people’s) as being a material impediment in my day-to-day life, it’s still something which I need to be aware of, and take account of, every day.
At the outset, I should note that the law firm where I work, Greenberg Traurig, has a strong record of diversity and inclusiveness (see https://bit.ly/3ewP9rA). (This may go back to the firm’s founding in the 1960s and the societal and cultural factors at play then: Bari Weiss has written that the “law firms [that Jewish lawyers] had built because they’d been shut out of the others were now the ones everyone was clamouring to join” with the leaders of those law firms then being “capable of advocating not just for themselves but also for those still facing systemic discrimination”.)
What Exactly is Stammering?
Stammering can be difficult to describe accurately, but it’s crucial to define it correctly in order to get a complete understanding of how it has the potential to result in prejudice and discrimination. Some descriptions focus on certain aspects of the condition (usually the audible disfluencies and visible tics or mannerisms) but do not encompass others facets which are, to me at least, just as significant. For example, Stamma, the advocacy organisation in the UK formerly known as the British Stammering Association, defines stammering as:
“a neurological condition that makes it physically hard to speak. Someone who stammers will repeat, prolong or get stuck on sounds or words. There might also be signs of visible tension as the person struggles to get the word out” (see https://bit.ly/307tFMJ).
However, The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), a professional body for speech therapists and related professionals in the USA, adopts a broader definition (and they refer to stammering as “stuttering” in the US):
“[s]tuttering is more than just disfluencies. Stuttering also may include tension and negative feelings about talking. It may get in the way of how you talk to others. You may want to hide your stuttering. So, you may avoid certain words or situations. For example, you may not want to talk on the phone if that makes you stutter more” (see https://bit.ly/38UvVel).
I favour ASHA’s definition since it highlights that even though a person who stammers may exhibit limited audible disfluencies (since they may be a so-called covert person who stammers and is able to hide the condition), the actual impact of stammering on that person can, nonetheless, be very substantial. This is why stammering has been likened to an iceberg — the discernible aspects (i.e., the part of the iceberg that is observable above the water) are only a small part of a larger whole. The hidden aspects — i.e., the emotional aspects, including the persistent apprehension, the often profound sense of humiliation or shame and the inner voice, which can be your severest critic — exist below the surface, out of sight to most other than the person who stammers.
The cause of stammering has long been uncertain, and many theories, some fairly preposterous, have been proposed. However, recent research suggests that it is a mostly neurological condition (i.e., down to differences in brain structure), but one which can be exacerbated by, and which interacts with, a number of other factors. The Stuttering Foundation of America (an advocacy organisation for people who stammer in the US) sets out its understanding of the causes as follows:
“[t]here are four factors most likely to contribute to the development of stammering: genetics (approximately 60% of those who stammer have a family member who does also); child development (children with other speech and language problems or developmental delays are more likely to stammer); neurophysiology (recent neurological research has shown that people who stammer process speech and language slightly differently than those who do not stammer); and family dynamics (high expectations and fast-paced lifestyles can contribute to stammering). Stammering may occur when a combination of factors comes together and may have different causes in different people. It is probable that what causes stammering differs from what makes it continue or get worse.” (see https://bit.ly/32ca40G)
Though relatively uncommon, some people may acquire a stammer as a result of a stroke, a head injury or drug use. It appears that roughly 1% of people — across cultures, races and countries — have the condition, but it is more common in men than in women.
There are likely several people with the condition in any large organisation, although, as is discussed below, there might be reasons why people who stammer are less likely to be found in some types of organisations than others. Also, many people who stammer might not be easily identifiable as having the condition since they might be able, with varying degrees of success, to hide it. Doing so can, however, result in a significant emotional and physical toll.
The Idea of a How a Lawyer Needs to Speak
When thinking about why prejudice and discrimination relating to speech dysfluencies might be a particular issue in the legal profession, one starting point is to note the perceived importance of verbal communication skills as a characteristic which a good lawyer should always possess. For example (and to provide just a small selection from the more than forty-two million results from a web search), it has been stated that:
- “communication skills are essential to the practice of law” and “communication skills can be critical to [young lawyers’] success” (American Bar Association at https://bit.ly/2NDdSzt);
- “[l]awyers must be orally articulate” (All About Law at https://bit.ly/2ZgCPGw);
- “strong oral […] communication skills are crucial and without them you’ll struggle to carry out the duties of a [lawyer] effectively” (Prospects at https://bit.ly/2VtLkgb);
- “you can be the best technical lawyer but if you cannot effectively and empathetically communicate with clients and colleagues while under pressure, building a successful practice will be challenging” (Target Jobs at https://bit.ly/3dIm6B0);
- “your role [as a lawyer] is to communicate your arguments in such a way as to persuade …” (The Lawyer Portal at https://bit.ly/2CdfePp); and
- “[y]ou must be able to convey information in clear, concise, and logical terms. You should be able to communicate persuasively” (The Balance Careers at https://bit.ly/2ZuKu5n).
Being a good communicator is regarded as being fundamental to being an effective lawyer, whether it be communication in formal legal proceedings, presenting educational seminars, participating in negotiations or simply engaging with clients and other lawyers in face-to-face and telephone meetings (the latter being, in my experience, what takes up much of a lawyer’s time). This is no doubt influenced, at least in part, by the public’s understanding of what a lawyer does, which, as a result of films and other media portrayals, seems to have indelibly linked effective lawyering with good verbal communication skills.
The general public’s view is one thing, but, in my experience, it is a view shared by many people in senior positions within law firms. It has been made clear to me on several occasions (none of which, I should make clear, have occurred in connection with my current employment) that the way I sometimes speak is inconsistent with how a particular lawyer or a particular law firm regards as the acceptable way for a lawyer to communicate or how that law firm wants to be represented to its clients. For example, I was once told by a partner at a firm I had applied to for a training position, in relation to how it was thought I would be perceived by clients, that those clients needed to see “confident” lawyers. The implication was that I was not coming across as a confident lawyer due to my speech impediment. In another example, a partner interviewing me for a trainee role at a very reputable and well-regarded firm in London informed me that they “could never put someone who spoke like me in front of their clients”. (And, if it needs to be said, the fact that I routinely interact with clients — including being sent on a long-term secondment to one — without issue or concern demonstrates the manifest wrongness of that statement and the ignorance which clearly lay behind it).
Of course, I have also had many colleagues who, when the issue has been raised, have told me that my dysfluencies were of no consequence in their eyes. One memorable example of this was a partner telling me — after enjoying a couple of beers marking my joining their team — that if anyone ever made an issue of my speech, I should simply tell them to “f**k off,” irrespective of who they might happen to be. With some regret, I have not yet found myself in the right circumstances to put this advice into practice!
The Need to be a ‘Good’ Communicator
There’s no doubt that good communication skills are regarded as vital in many roles, not just within the legal sector. We live in a time when such skills are prized by employers and are invariably identified in job descriptions as being essential or a must-have. However, there’s a distinction between being an effective communicator, which is something people who stammer are capable of, and the perception of confidence and proficiency (i.e., sounding “right” or having the correct verbal characteristics), which studies have shown is what employers are often judging applicants on.
We know how necessary it is to look professional when attending a job interview — wearing a suit, having polished shoes, being well-groomed, adopting the right posture, maintaining eye contact, and so on. However, much less attention is given to the importance of sounding professional. When this is discussed in relation to recruitment, it is typically in regard to regional accents, speaking too quickly or the use of slang. But it’s clear that having the necessary polish or aesthetic that employers are looking for, both audible and visual, is an important part of getting ahead, particularly in the so-called elite, client-facing professions such as law, accountancy and consulting. (A recent BBC documentary highlighting this issue — How to Break into the Elite (see https://bbc.in/3eNkR4Q) — is well worth watching.)
The Perception of People Who Stammer
So, given that “sounding right” is a relevant factor in recruitment, what is the perception of people who stammer? We don’t need to rely on anecdotal evidence: it is well documented in academic literature that, across a diverse range of listeners and cultures, interactions with people who stammer result in negative perceptions and biases, even in people who are knowledgeable about stammering (Allard and Williams, 2008; Abdalla and St. Louis, 2012). People who stammer are judged to be more submissive, tense and insecure than their fluent peers (Woods and Williams, 1976; Woods, 1978). They are judged to be more guarded and nervous (Doody et al., 1993), to have less cognitive ability, to be less likeable, to have lower self-esteem and to be less socially adjusted (Amick et al., 2017). They are also judged to be less employable (Hurst and Cooper, 1983(2)) and to have lower occupational competence (Silverman and Paynter, 1990).
In one study where nurses were asked to imagine two doctors, one fluent and one who stammers, the latter was rated as being “more afraid, tense, nervous, and aggravating in addition to being less mature, intelligent, secure, competent, confident, educated and reputable” than the former (Silverman and Bongey, 2017). In another, more recent study, and after a comprehensive review of relevant academic literature, the authors concluded that the body of academic research showed that “individuals who [stammer] are subject to broad negative social and cognitive impressions” (Amick et al., 2017).
Assuming you, like me, accept that people who stammer do not have, on average, less cognitive ability, are not less likeable and are not generally more anxious than fluent members of the general population, etc., their disfluencies, and perhaps also the ancillary physical mannerisms which accompany them, have the effect of creating these unfavourable impressions in people who interact with them in moments of disfluency.
This may be a largely unconscious stress response — possibly resulting from an overlap between stammering and certain audible and visible traits, such as not maintaining eye contact, which people tend to associate with anxiety or a lack of honesty. If so, it is an obvious example of unconscious bias — an attitude about a certain group of people that forms outside of a person’s conscious awareness.
When the unconscious bias is against a protected characteristic — such as age, disability, gender identity, marital status, maternity, race, religion, belief or sexual orientation — it can be discriminatory.
Stammering and the Recruitment Process
Stammering can be very situational, and its severity can vary significantly, even across very short periods of time. This means that consequential speaking situations — when there is a perceived expectation that a high degree of fluency is necessary — can be especially difficult even where a few minutes earlier, a person was fluent. I believe that this results from negative reinforcement: if you believe that you are going to be judged on how you speak — and a lifetime of stammering will have made it clear to people who stammer that they will be — you will be anxious to avoid stammering at that moment and not to be identified as someone who stammers (which still, as discussed below, attracts a social stigma). When you fail to avoid stammering in what you regard as a consequential speaking situation (which for some people who stammer might be every speaking situation), your negative expectations around speaking and the corresponding potential for future anxiety are reinforced.
You will go into future speaking situations anxious not to stammer and that anxiety will, in turn, manifest (as it can even with so-called fluent speakers) in more stammering. Interviews are typically a consequential speaking situation. As a result, and as Stamma notes, “[h]ighly capable people who stammer may find themselves unable to perform at their best at interviews.”
In legal recruitment, interviews can involve technical questions being put to applicants. There is often a role-play element, typically where the interviewers act as clients, and the applicants are to play the role of their lawyer responding to either an ad hoc legal query or one which they have had a chance to prepare for. This can be problematic for people who stammer since stammering often occurs with the most important words and sentences in a conversation. People who stammer often try to scan what they are proposing to say ahead, editing it on the fly to avoid words which have caused them trouble in the past or which they anticipate might cause them trouble in the future. They will swap words in the moment — “car” with “vehicle”, “job” with “role”, “judgement” with “ruling” — and in many cases, they may decide to simply say nothing. This can affect their participation in conversations in which specific words or phrases (such as the names of particular court decisions or legal terms) are expected.
Aside from the obvious point that time and patience on the part of listeners will always let people who stammer get their point across, it is false to equate fluency alone with being a good communicator. Audience engagement, strength of content, fostering empathy and humour are all just as relevant as mere fluency — perhaps more so.
It’s also the case that stammering can itself lead to the enhancement of other communication skills: a lifetime of coping with stammering can lead to people who stammer becoming very adroit with language and good at showing empathy, being active listeners and having strong writing skills. All of these attributes are very relevant to the practice of law. Indeed, in my experience, clients often take technical legal skills (which stammering, need it be said, has absolutely no bearing upon) for granted, and they instead place more importance on having a legal advisor they can trust who avoids jargon, is responsive, is clearly ‘on their side’ and is willing to go the extra mile for them. Stammering is of limited relevance to any of that.
One under-appreciated aspect of the condition (although not for people who stammer) is that it can impose a significant cognitive overhead: it is, quite simply, exhausting. Being in the moment of stammering itself pulls mental resources away from thinking about what you should be saying and directs energy both to how to actually get your words out, but also to how the listener may be perceiving your stammering. Not only is it draining, but it is also part of the reason why many people say that “stammering” is actually what they do when they are trying not to stammer — that effort is itself an aspect of the condition. This can result in stammering having a material impact on the substantive “quality” of what you are able to say. In an interview context, when you may only get a couple of minutes to make a good impression, it seems unlikely that this could not have an impact on the chances of someone who stammers.
There’s also a risk that stammering can negatively impact a person’s chances of promotion when they are in an organisation. Indeed, research (Butler, 2014) suggests this is a relatively common occurrence. There are a number of potential reasons for this, but it is likely to come down to the same reasons that many people who stammer experience difficulties in finding a job in the first place — the same biases and prejudices can manifest in internal promotion processes, too. As highlighted above, there may not even be a conscious decision taken not to promote someone, but rather there may be an unconscious discounting of a person who stammers as being unsuitable for promotion. It’s also the case that the avoidance techniques that many people who stammer use to avoid stammering (i.e., choosing not to speak in meetings or when given opportunities to highlight their work to their colleagues or to clients) can also serve to limit visibility within an organisation. They may, therefore, be overlooked when it comes to the promotion process unless they find themselves with enough people willing to advocate on their behalf amongst their colleagues.
We need to be careful though to ensure that people who stammer don’t simply ascribe all of their perceived professional disappointments and setbacks down to prejudice discrimination. That would be lazy. Putting stammering and all that it can entail aside, people who stammer are candidates and employees like everyone else — they can have the same balance of positive and negative qualities as members of the ‘fluent’ population, the same issues with their experience and skills not exactly matching what a role or promotion might demand, the same chance of having an ‘off-day’ when they are being interviewed, the same chance of being in an industry impacted by an economic contraction and the same chance of being up against a candidate who may simply be, for some other reason, more suitable for the role than them. While stammering can impact on all of those factors (for example, prejudice may have led to a person who stammers not being able to acquire the necessary experience for a role), simply putting everything down to discrimination and using that to avoid taking responsibility for our own failures and poor choices won’t do anyone any good. Still, the idea that some prejudice and discrimination exists against people who stammer is undeniable.
What’s Different About Stammering?
The comment from a recruiting partner I referred to above that their firm “could never put someone who spoke like me in front of their clients” was made in 2008, not decades ago when making an overtly discriminatory statement in a professional context without any apparent concern for the consequences might not have been very unusual. The fact that it was said, as opposed to being merely thought and left unsaid, without any apparent concern that it was unacceptable, could just be put down to that person being a bad egg in an otherwise decent organisation. Alternatively, it could be the result of the organisation itself having serious cultural problems. I find it unlikely, however, that a genuinely bad person, whom you would expect to have developed a reputation as such amongst colleagues who had worked with them for any length of time, would be given a role in the recruitment of junior lawyers.
I think the cause is more likely to be, as the author of one study (Butler, 2014) concluded, that stammering can be contrasted “with other impairments, such as dyslexia, where employees now expect, and employers are expected to make, adjustments to facilitate full access to work”. In other words, to the extent that it is given much thought by employers at all, stammering is not yet regarded as unacceptable to discriminate against, nor does the condition usually trigger any thought that duties under anti-discrimination laws may apply.
As an aside, stammering is clearly capable, on the right facts, of meeting the definition of a disability under both the UK and US disability regimes — see https://bit.ly/392Mi8Q (in relation to the UK) and https://bit.ly/2OpFFUE (in relation to the US). Of course, many people who stammer, perhaps the majority, do not regard themselves as having a disability. Some people who stammer — particularly those who subscribe to the social model of disability — take the view that stammering is only an issue because we live in a society which makes it so and not that stammering itself is something from which a person needs to be “cured.”
That attitudes are not yet where they should be, despite the success of sympathetic portrayals of people who stammer, such as Oscar-winning film The King’s Speech, is clear from the fact that stammering is still often a source of mockery and humour. Indeed, The King’s Speech itself was “spoofed” on the BBC’s Comic Relief by British comedian Lenny Henry shortly after its release (see https://bit.ly/3gbnnlU). The irony of mocking a condition which can constitute a disability in a television programme intended to foster empathy and raise money for disadvantaged individuals — and one watched by millions of children, likely some who were, at the time, being bullied because of their speech, a known vulnerability for people who stammer (Blood and Blood, 2004) — was clearly lost on Henry and the BBC (although Richard Curtis, the co-creator of Comic Relief along with Henry, did apologise subsequently).
Advocating for People Who Stammer
It’s usually easier to identify problems than it is to find and then implement effective solutions. This is true in relation to many diversity issues. For example, despite the under-representation of people with a black and minority ethnic (BAME) background in law firms being a long-known issue, a number of law firms in the UK have recently had to once again affirm their commitment to helping BAME candidates and lawyers achieve their professional goals. While any evidence of a commitment to diversity is welcome, mere announcements not backed up by a thoughtful and realisable plan are obviously likely to be of limited worth. Equally, of course, we can’t expect organisations such as law firms to do their bit to tackle systemic issues without also pushing for changes in wider society and culture — in other words, we need to tackle the root causes of under-representation and discrimination to truly achieve equality.
In relation to the prejudice and discrimination faced by people who stammer, I think that the most effective way of countering this is through education: prejudice and discrimination often, it has been said, just feed on the ignorance of the well-intentioned. We need to make more people more aware of the condition (hence the small contribution of this article), highlighting that it can result in prejudice and bias and explaining what practical steps or reasonable adjustments can be taken to help make workplaces more inclusive. Stamma has, for example, produced a helpful guide for employers (see https://bit.ly/3eo3uq9).
People who stammer also have a role to play — we need to be more visible within our organisations and advocate more effectively for our own cause. Many people already do this: various professional networks have been established to forge closer links between people who stammer and employers. In the UK, for example, there is 50 Million Voices (see https://bit.ly/2FWrLbn), the Employers Stammering Network (see https://bit.ly/2YHXtQM), the Defence Stammering Network (see https://bit.ly/2CDBAJx), and the Civil Service Stammering Network (see https://bit.ly/32iRbt8).
Specifically in a legal context, lawyers who stammer need to make themselves available as mentors and, where possible, be widely visible as role models. While this is something which many people who stammer may be reluctant to do — and the nature of the condition itself can serve to limit the visibility of people who stammer in the media and public discourse — it can only be beneficial, both for law firms (given how evidence of diversity is increasingly demanded by clients) and the diversity of the profession itself.
The author is a lawyer in the London office of an international law firm. This article was written in his personal capacity. Comments are welcome at aonghus.heatley@gmail.com.
