Return-Path: <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e7DF5NP19765; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 11:05:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 11:05:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3996B986.8B9DB06D@earthlink.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Alec Levenson <aleclevenson@earthlink.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WORKPLACE:3669] RE: Tom Sticht Research Note (Long) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) Status: O Content-Length: 3398 Lines: 58 Now that this line of discussion has started, there is another critique of Tom's message that I did not raise before. It is related to Ajit's statements below. Tom cites a statistic that a significant fraction of workers are in jobs where their literacy/basic skills are not fully utilized, yet few workers seem to be in jobs where the literacy requirements exceed their abilities. This is a key point in his argument that we may face a literacy surplus, not deficit, in the labor market. But consider the realities of the workplace. When designing jobs, companies strive to ensure that the people filling those jobs will make as few critical errors as possible. Thus they often screen for the minimal skills needed to perform the job adequately, with the expectation that the people they hire will perform well above the minimum standard. Failure to meet the minimum standard is used as grounds for denying pay raises, for denying promotions, or for firing. Thus, we should rarely find someone in a job for which he/she is very underqualified -- at least not for an extended period of time. Of course, there are exceptions that prove this rule, but those are typically found in civil service and other occupations with ironclad job security. The converse, however, is quite common. Because someone has to demonstrate compentence over a broad range of skills in order to qualify for higher paying, higher skilled jobs, we should expect to find many people in jobs whose literacy requirements are lower than the person's ability. These people presumably are deficient on some other skill dimension than literacy (e.g. supervisory skills, communication skills, interpersonal skills, computer skills, ...). But, as Ajit points out, many other people will be stuck in jobs for which their literacy skills just satisfy the minimal requirements for those jobs. These people are prevented from advancing because of their low basic skills. If such workers are the only ones available, then companies adapt by designing jobs that require lower skills, further reinforcing the empirical patterns that Tom cites. Thus Tom's impression of a literacy surplus likely is the exact opposite of the reality. Properly interpreted, the patterns he notes in the labor market seem much more likely to represent a literacy deficit. -- Alec Levenson Center for Effective Organizations, USC, and Milken Institute aleclevenson@earthlink.net -- Ajit Gopalakrishnan wrote: > Low unemployment numbers do not mean that companies are hiring people with > the skills that would best meet their need; it may also mean that companies > are willing to make compromises in their hiring decisions. There is a price > that companies pay for not having people with high skills who can do the job > most effectively. This price can range from simple errors in filling out > forms, and miscommunications within the organization, to lost customers, > errors in production, and finally to even going-out-of-business. In the > arena of global competition and international standards (ISO, QS, etc.) that > US companies are competing in, the room for error is becoming smaller. > > We have worked with companies where the employees with low-level basic > skills (who have worked there for years and have learned how to do their > jobs) are now denied access from upward mobility because of those low-level > basic skills.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:42:41 EST