Two professionals may have the same education, similar experience, and work with the same tech stack or product. However, one is offered a role within a local team, while the other is entrusted with presentations, client calls, and coordination with offices in other countries. The salaries for these positions also differ.
At first glance, it seems that the employer pays a premium for English proficiency. In reality, they’re paying for a broader range of tasks that the person can perform without constant assistance from colleagues.
English doesn’t create professional value out of thin air. A weak specialist doesn’t become strong just because they speak fluently. But for a competent professional, the language opens up a part of the market that would otherwise remain inaccessible.
Companies rarely evaluate language proficiency in isolation from the job itself. What matters to them is whether an employee can independently lead a meeting, clarify requirements, explain risks, present solutions, or agree on the next steps.
The difference becomes particularly noticeable in export-oriented industries, international service companies, IT, consulting, marketing, logistics, and sales. In these fields, English changes not only the way people communicate but also the scope of their responsibilities.
A specialist without working English may excel at their part of the project but require an intermediary for every call. Someone else must translate the client’s request, verify the response, explain the context, and handle the complex conversation. For a business, this means extra time and dependence on people who aren’t always available immediately.
When an employee communicates directly, the chain of communication becomes shorter. They receive information faster, lose less in translation, and can take responsibility for the outcome of a broader scope of work. It is precisely this autonomy that often comes at a monetary cost.
Studies of the Ukrainian IT market regularly show a link between a higher level of English and higher incomes. But such data should be interpreted with caution.
People with better English skills are more likely to work at international companies, have more experience, hold senior positions, and perform tasks that involve direct communication. Therefore, you can’t simply take the average salary difference and conclude that moving from B1 to B2 will automatically add a certain amount to your monthly income.
The market doesn’t work that way, though it would be convenient: learn some conditional phrasal verbs, and receive a pay raise notice from accounting.
It’s more accurate to talk about expanding your options. Stronger English allows you to apply for jobs where candidates without it won’t even be considered.
These often include international projects, leadership roles, client-facing positions, and roles paid in foreign currency.
Language barriers aren’t always obvious at the start. A Junior or Middle specialist can work successfully for years on a Ukrainian-speaking team, reading documentation and using a translator for correspondence.
The problem arises when taking the next step. To transition into management, presales, a product role, or work with a major client, it’s no longer enough to simply perform one’s own tasks well. You need to lead conversations, ask tough questions, justify decisions, and respond without a long pause to prepare.
In such cases, a manager might choose not the most technically skilled candidate, but the one they feel more comfortable entrusting with external communication. This isn’t always fair from a professional competence standpoint, but it makes sense from the company’s risk perspective.
In this situation, the language barrier doesn’t diminish the value of the work already done. It limits the types of tasks for which a person is willing to pay more.
The phrase “English is required” is too vague. For one role, it’s enough to read technical documentation and exchange brief emails. For another, you need to moderate daily meetings, negotiate budgets, or deliver bad news to a client.
Therefore, the goal should be defined in terms of work tasks, not just a CEFR level.
For example:
Two job openings requiring B2 may demand completely different levels of language confidence. In one, predictable internal communication is sufficient. In the other, the person deals daily with accents, objections, and unprepared questions.
The greatest return comes not from abstract improvement in English, but from overcoming a specific limitation.
If a professional is already seeing job openings they’re not applying for because of fear of the interview, the goal is clear. If a manager is ready to promote an employee once they can handle a client independently, that’s also clear. If the job doesn’t require English and that isn’t likely to change anytime soon, the financial return may be significantly lower.
That is precisely why the program should be built around real-world tasks: interviews, business calls, presentations, correspondence, or negotiations. The online school My English by Business Language, which works with adults in Ukraine and Ukrainians abroad, helps you systematically prepare for these situations.
English does not guarantee a promotion and does not replace professional competence. It does something else: it eliminates situations in which a highly skilled professional is denied a more senior role simply because part of the work is conducted in another language.
For someone whose field is connected to the international market, this is no longer just a decorative line on a resume. It is part of professional competence and, therefore, one of the factors influencing income.
English and Income, Language Proficiency, Specialist’s Salary
