Worker Writing in a Post-Literate Age

More employees are required to write well these days, thanks to the advent of the information economy. The paradox is that employers are demanding greater workforce literacy even as – if some experts are to be believed – we are headed into an increasingly “post-literate” era.

The increased use of e-mail is one of the primary drivers of the growing need for good writing. “E-mail is a party to which English teachers have not been invited,” according to Dr. R. Craig Hogan, an expert in business writing. “It has companies tearing their hair out” (Dillon, 2004).

Indeed, most U.S. employers report that about a third of their employees can’t write as well as their jobs require, according to a recent survey by the College Board’s National Commission on Writing. “Businesses are really crying out – they need to have people who write better,” said College Board President Gaston Caperton (Read, 2004).

The survey – which includes responses from HR directors at 64 firms affiliated with the Business Roundtable – found that the need for good writing doesn’t only apply to e-mail but to reports, memos, and presentations. The most highly desired writing skills include “accuracy, clarity and proper usage” (College Board, 2004).

Susan Traiman, director of Education Initiative at the Business Roundtable, believes that the demand for good writing has grown stronger in recent years. The College Board survey indicates that many companies are making recruitment and promotion decisions partly based on these skills.

Of course, the importance of communication as a job skill isn’t new. Since 1999, employers have given communication abilities – both written and verbal – the highest rating in the Job Outlook surveys published by the National Association of Colleges and Employers. In the Job Outlook 2005 survey, communication skills received a rating of 4.7 on a scale where 1 is not important and 5 is extremely important, making it the single most important job-candidate quality along with honesty/integrity (“Communication,” 2005).

It’s little wonder, then, that the U.S. is trying harder to gauge the writing skills of its students. The most popular college admission exam, the SAT, is introducing a writing portion, which includes a timed essay as well as multiple-choice grammar and editing questions (Manzo, 2005). The second-most popular test, the ACT, has also added an essay section, though it will be optional.

“For years, we’ve been hearing the opportunities for writing are shrinking in high schools and colleges,” says the College Board’s Caperton (Kinsman, 2005). The hope is that standardized tests with writing components will force more students and teachers to refocus their attention in this area.

But factors besides education could be at play, especially if writing skills are partly gleaned from reading habits. A recent study conducted by the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) found that there’s been a serious drop in the percentage of Americans who read literary works (novels, poems, plays) from 56.9% in 1982 to 54% in 1990 and 46.7% in 2002. The percentage of Americans reading any kind of book (including nonfiction) declined a bit more slowly – by four percentage points since 1990. The drop in literary reading was particularly sharp for young adults, from 59.8% in 1982 to 42.8% in 2002 (“Literary,” 2004).

These declines are likely the result of an explosion in other types of media. “In 1990,” reports the NEA, “book buying constituted 5.7% of total recreation spending, while spending on audio, video, computers, and software was 6%. By 2002, electronic spending had soared to 24%, while spending on books declined slightly to 5.6%.”

Some would argue that this is all part of a larger trend, a movement away from traditional written products toward knowledge products that are increasingly online, visual, multimedia, multi-channel and interactive (Weissinger, 2004). In other words, we could be moving into a period of “new literacy” or “post literacy.”

The problem with this transition is that even the use of new media, such as the Internet, is highly dependent on traditional literacy skills. A recent study by the firm Nielson Norman suggests that, contrary to conventional wisdom, adults are more highly skilled than teenagers when it comes to using the Internet. “Teens ages 13 to 17 were able to complete assigned tasks on the Web 55% of the time, compared with 66% for adults,” reports the Mercury News. The reason? Teens tend to lack patience and have inferior reading and research skills (Oanh Ha, 2005).

For employers, there are a number of strategies that can be pursued in response to such trends. First, organizations should make it clear to educators, students and potential applicants that traditional literacy skills – especially writing skills – are a growing priority even in a multimedia age. Second, many firms should expand programs to help employees develop writing skills. Although over 40% of employers frequently or almost always provide writing training to salaried workers who need it, a majority of businesses do not (College Board, 2004).

Third, and most controversial, is the idea that organizations should consider encouraging employees to read more – especially edited works by professional writers. Just as employers promote wellness activities, they could provide low-cost incentives, such as corporate facilities for voluntary book club meetings, to promote literacy and “intellectual wellness.”

While this may or may not have a positive impact on writing skills, it is likely to have other benefits. The NEA study shows that people who read literature are more likely to work in managerial, professional and technical jobs. By promoting cultural literacy, companies may become more attractive to these types of talented workers. The study also shows that literary readers are more likely to be socially engaged people who participate in the arts, sports and community life (NEA, 2004). By promoting greater cultural literacy, employers can serve the good of the community as well as the good of the organization.



For a PDF version of the NEA’s Reading at Risk report, click here.

For more on NACE's Job Outlook 2005, click here.

For a PDF version of Writing: A Ticket to Work...Or a Ticket Out, click here.

For the article “Literary Reading Is Declining Faster than Before, Arts Endowment's New Report Says,” click here.

For the NEA’s homepage, click here.

For the article “Adults Better Web Surfers than Teens, Study Shows,” click here.

For more information on the Business Roundtable, click here.

Documents used in the preparation of this TrendWatcher include:

“A Bad Moon Rising.” Strategic Finance. ProQuest. October 2004, p. 64.

College Board. Writing: A Ticket to Work...Or a Ticket Out: A Survey of Business Leaders, September 2004.

“Communication Skills, Honesty/Integrity Top Employers’ ‘Wish List’ for Job Candidates.” Press release, January 20, 2005.

Dillon, Sam. “What Corporate America Can’t Build: A Sentence.” New York Times, December 7, 2004.

Epstein, Joseph. “Is Reading Really at Risk?” The Weekly Standard, August 16-23, 2004.

Kinsman, Michael. “Writing Skills; Good and Bad Stand Out in the Workplace. Network Journal, January 31, 2005, p. 37.

“Literary Reading in Dramatic Decline, According to National Endowment for the Arts Survey.” Press release. July 8, 2004.

Manzo, Kathleen Kennedy. “Educators Hope SAT’s New Essay Will Bolster Writing in Schools.” Education Week. ProQuest. February 2, 2005, p. 17.

McLemee, Scott. “Literary Reading Is Declining Faster than Before, Arts Endowment’s New Report Says.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 9, 2004.

National Endowment for the Arts. Reading At Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America. Research Division Report #46. June 2004.

Oanh, Ha K. “Adults Better Web Surfers than Teens, Study Shows.” Mercury News, February 2005.

Read, Madlen. “Employers Urge Workers to Improve Writing.” Associated Press Online. LexisNexis. September 14, 2004.

Weissinger, Thomas. “The New Literacy Thesis: Implications for Librarianship.” Portal: Library and the Academy, April 2004, p. 245.