Abstract
Employers frequently complain about the state of their employees’ writing skills. Much of the current research on this subject explores workplace writing skills from the employer’s perspective. However, this article examines workplace writing from the employees’ perspective. Specifically, it analyzes MBA students’ responses to a course assignment in which they assessed their writing strengths and weaknesses and reflected on opportunities and threats to demonstrating good writing skills in the workplace. Results indicate employers must show that they value good writing and that writing skills must become the employee’s habit. Implications for business communication pedagogy are discussed.
Introduction
Business communication teachers continually work to help students acquire the writing skills they will need on joining the workforce. Of course, we do this because we know employers value communication skills, and we know that students with excellent writing skills will likely provide more value to their employers and project a more professional image than those whose writing skills are considered poor. In fact, employers say that they look positively at candidates whose résumés list business communication courses (Hynes & Sigmar, 2009). At the same time, despite the availability of business writing instruction in both academia (undergraduate and graduate) and in the workplace, employers continue to complain that there is a significant gap between their expectations for employees’ writing skills and the employees’ actual skills. Much of the literature studies this gap from a skills-deficit perspective as described by employers; however, the purpose of this article is to go to the source of the poor writing—employees themselves—to investigate why employees write poorly in the workplace and to offer insight regarding business writing curricula and instruction, both in academia and the workplace, that may develop the skills and motivation employees require to meet employers’ expectations.
Literature Review
Recent news articles criticize the state of business professionals’ writing skills. A Wall Street Journal article noted that grammar skills are so bad (especially among younger employees) that 45% of 430 companies surveyed by the Society for Human Resource Management and AARP reported implementing some sort of remedial grammar training for their workers. Still other companies referenced in the article require preemployment spelling and grammar tests, while another holds grammar contests to improve employees’ skills (Schellenbarger, 2012). Wiens (2012), blogging for the Harvard Business Review, received considerable support when he wrote that he would not hire anyone who could not pass his grammar test. His reasoning is that people who pay attention to grammar are likely more detailed and competent in other areas of their work.
Use of standard grammar is not the sole quality of a good writer, but its use is seen as a mark of professionalism and intelligence. And it is not just grammar misuse that bothers employers. Earlier discussions in popular media lament employees’ inability to write clearly and concisely (Dillon, 2004). Jones’s (2011) survey of accounting firms that hire new graduates found that, in rank order, employers expect but are only “marginally satisfied with” (p. 259) the following writing skills: (a) effectively organizing sentences and paragraphs; (b) writing clearly and precisely; (c) spelling correctly; (d) preparing concise, accurate, and supportive documents; (e) documenting work completely and accurately; (f) using correct grammar; (g) conscientiously editing and revising documents; and (h) effectively using email (p. 263). Clear writing and outlining were identified as the skills employers were least satisfied with in new graduates.
In addition, The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the Society for Human Resource Management (2006) found that while writing skills ranked among the top skills employers want new employees to have, most high school, 2-year, and 4-year graduates are ranked as being deficient in their writing ability. More recently, the National Association of Colleges and Employers Job Outlook 2011 reports that employers want employees who write well, but they are not satisfied with employees’ writing skills. In fact, when employers rank the gap between their expectations for skills and the skills employees possess, expectations for writing have the largest gap (National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2010).
It does not appear that poor writing skills are unique to undergraduates; MBA students’ skills are not rated any more favorably. According to Middleton (2011), employers frequently complain about the writing skills of employees with MBAs, saying the writing is wordy and “pretentious” (para. 4). Middleton also cites evidence that scores on the GMAT essay have fallen in recent years and reports employers’ common complaints that MBA employees’ writing, in addition to being wordy and pretentious, frequently is not on point and is not adapted appropriately for the audience.
Poor writing is costly, so it is understandable that employers want employees who write well. A frequently cited study by the College Board reports that companies spend $3.1 billion annually to improve employees’ writing skills and generally view good writing (clear, concise, accurate, and grammatically correct writing) as a requirement for hiring and promotion (National Commission on Writing, 2004). All (2008) estimates that organizations lose $2100 to $4100 per year as a result of poor writing. And UpWrite Press (2012) provides the following cost calculator showing a hypothetical company’s $1.5 million annual loss due to poor communication, based on the following variables and calculations:
Variables (para. 4):
The company has 1,000 employees who send and receive email daily.
They write and send an average of 10 emails per day.
They send or copy each message to three different people.
Five percent of email messages require clarification.
The employee takes 10 minutes to clarify each email.
Employee salaries average $50,000 per employee per year (approximately $24 per hour or $0.40 per minute).
Calculation (para. 5):
1,000 employees send 10 emails = 10,000 email messages sent each day.
3 recipients are included per email message = 30,000 messages received.
5% require clarification = 1,500 messages.
1,500 messages take 10 minutes each to clarify = 15,000 minutes of productivity wasted daily deciphering unclear messages.
15,000 minutes of lost productivity result @ $0.40 per minute = $6,000.00 of lost productivity per day.
$6,000.00 × 250 working days per year = $1.5 million per year in productivity lost due to poor writing skills.
For many years, business programs have incorporated writing requirements at both the undergraduate (Knight, 1999; Sharp & Brumberger, 2013) and graduate (Knight, 1999) levels, and when business communication instructors read reports about employees’ writing, they look for ways to enrich their curricula and teaching to better prepare students to meet the demands of the workplace; however, much of the current research on improving workplace writing focuses on ways to help them do so: grammar and mechanics instruction (Quible & Griffin, 2007), writing across the curriculum (WAC) or in the disciplines (WID; Dana, Hancock, & Phillips, 2011), peer review and collaboration (Gueldenzoph & May, 2002), and deliberate practice with workplace scenarios (Kellogg & Whiteford, 2009). Numerous studies in Business Communication Quarterly demonstrate how to use simulations, real-life cases, contexts, and clients to better connect students’ communication to an authentic communication context (e.g., Addams, Woodbury, Allred, & Addams, 2010; Paulson, 2011; Zhu & White, 2009). More recently, MBA programs such as those at Wharton, Northwestern, and the University of Rochester have added to their communication course offerings, required students to participate in writing competitions, and hired writing coaches as a way to improve MBA student writing, again with the goal of strengthening students’ writing skill sets (Middleton, 2011).
Yet the complaints continue. This article explores the disconnect: Why, given all of the efforts in the business communication classroom, do employees continue to write poorly in the workplace?
As evidenced in the discussion above, much of the literature on poor writing in the workplace focuses on poor writing skills as they relate to employer complaints regarding the very topics we teach: grammar and mechanics, style, clarity, organization, audience. The assumption underpinning this research is that if employees had the skills, they would write well. In other words, the extant literature suggests a skills-based approach to remediation—that employers and teachers just need to fix employees’ skills, and they will write well.
This study, however, examines poor writing from the employees’ perspective. Specifically, it examines MBA students’ assessments of their skills and their opinions on what prevents them from writing well in the workplace.
Method
Participants
Participants in this study were 63 MBA students who had worked or were working full- or part-time while enrolled full-time in an online MBA program at a regional university. As part of their MBA program, these 63 participants were taking an elective writing course. Participants came from three separate sections of the class taught over the course of 18 months. Participants were geographically dispersed and included students from or living in Asia and Eastern Europe as well as in the Northeast, Southeast, West Coast, Southern, and Midwestern regions of the United States. Participants worked in sales, marketing, human resources management, operations management, communications, manufacturing/production, quality control, medicine/health care, medical research, pharmaceutical research, veterinary medicine, interior design, entertainment, banking, financial services, accounting, retail management, food science, information systems, government, administration/management, and sole proprietorship. Using the course introductions and class list data as a guide, I am inferring that the gender makeup is nearly evenly divided between male and female. I am also inferring, based on students’ self-reports, that 7 of the students are not native English speakers. While it may be argued that the MBA students’ elective participation in the writing course would skew their perceptions of their writing abilities, the participants’ geographic, cultural, and professional variety across three sections of the class taught over three semesters allowed me to capture a diverse sample from which to analyze participants’ responses regarding their workplace writing. Furthermore, the students’ theoretical and applied knowledge of written communication in organizations gained from taking the course appeared to provide them the vocabulary that enriched their analysis of their workplace writing; it did not appear to affect the honesty of their responses.
Data Collection
As part of the course, participants reflected on their workplace writing practices. Specifically, at the end of the course, they conducted a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis of their workplace writing in which they analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of their workplace writing and then reflected on opportunities for improving their writing and on threats that prevent them from writing well at work. These analyses and reflections served as the artifacts for analysis in this study.
To assess their strengths, participants included in their SWOT analysis what they did well as writers, what skills they had that were better than those of most people with whom they worked, what resources were available to help them write, whether their company ever rewarded employees for writing well, and what the strengths of the written communication were within their organizations.
To assess their weaknesses, participants were asked to describe their weaknesses as writers, what others have said were their weaknesses as writers, which of their writing skills seemed weaker than those of their coworkers, and the weaknesses within their organizational culture regarding effective writing.
To reflect on opportunities for improving writing in the workplace, participants were asked what resources were available within and outside their organization to help them or other employees write effectively or overcome weaknesses, what they could use from the course to continue developing their skills or helping others in their company write effectively, and what they might do to improve writing in their organizations.
To reflect on threats to their ability to write well in the workplace, students were asked what gets in their way of writing effectively and overcoming their weaknesses, what organizational values or practices undermine effective writing for those who want to write effectively, what threats exist to improving the quality of the written communication in their organization, and what other demands of their job compete for the time they might spend planning, drafting, or revising a message.
Procedure
An initial review of the data at the end of each semester indicated common answers not only among students enrolled in one section but also among students across all three sections of the course. To more closely investigate my perception of common themes among the students’ responses, I employed a qualitative content analysis of the data. As Patton (2002) describes, a qualitative content analysis is “any qualitative data reduction and sense-making effort that takes a volume of qualitative material and attempts to identify core consistencies and meanings” (p. 453). Although content analysis is frequently quantitative, a qualitative approach appeared more appropriate for this analysis given the similarity in students’ responses. That is, to take a quantitative approach and count the number of times a particular term occurred seemed less rich an interpretation of that data than the examination of recurring themes across sections of the class. Thus, as advised in Patton (2002), Schilling (2006), and Weber (1990), I proceeded as follows.
First, I prepared the data by downloading all of the students’ SWOT analyses as Word files. Then I identified the units of analysis as any words, phrases, or sentences that provided meaningful information regarding a strength, weakness, opportunity, or threat (Schilling 2006; Weber 1990). I created a spreadsheet for each SWOT analysis with categories for the participants’ geographic location and type of work and their identification of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. To ensure a consistent and objective coding of the data, I enlisted the help of two students who also coded the SWOT analyses. From there, I was able to identify emergent themes. It was not important how many times a particular word or phrase occurred, as my intent was to uncover, as Patton (2002) says, “consistencies and meanings” (p. 453). That is, as Schilling (2006) explains, the goal of this research as a qualitative project is not to count data but to “fracture the data, rearrange it to facilitate the comparison of objects within and between categories” (p. 34). To that end, I reviewed the coded data and identified the themes that represented participants’ perceptions of their strengths and weaknesses and their most common thoughts on the opportunities for and threats to good writing in the workplace. While major themes emerged when several (in some cases, all) students identified the same threat, others emerged not because of the volume of students identifying a theme but because the theme consistently appeared across the separate sections of the course. Even when only a few individuals expressed ideas centered on a particular theme, their insights offer opportunity for interpretation and comparison.
Analysis
While the focus of this study is on threats to good writing in the workplace, students’ discussion of threats is enlightened by an understanding of what they perceived as their strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities; therefore, the analysis includes a presentation of the emergent themes in those areas of the SWOT and then follows with a presentation of students’ perceived threats to good writing in the workplace.
Strengths
Students were nearly unanimous in their assessment of their writing as direct, logical, organized, clear, and adapted to the audience. These strengths were evident in the following responses: “My strengths as a writer are that I am concise, logical, and informative. I am able to provide all needed information succinctly and precisely” and “My writing strength is that I provide my audience with great detail and organize my writing in a way that is easy to understand and read.” While a few students identified their grammar skills as a strength, grammar skills were not an emergent theme from the SWOT analyses. In terms of resources that help them become better writers, nearly all students identified resources; they most frequently identified company templates, the web, and coworkers as peer editors as their primary resources.
Most interesting is their response to the question of whether their companies reward them directly or indirectly for good writing. The emergent theme from the students’ responses was that they perceived no direct reward for writing well in the workplace. For most who said they were not rewarded directly, the explanation was that their work product, not the good communication, was rewarded. As one student said, No, I’m not aware of any rewards given for writing effectively. The main focus of rewards always seems to be on projects [that] improved processes or resulted in more sales. These are rewarded because the benefits can be measured by either cost savings or higher revenue, which ultimately creates more cash for our company.
Another student reflected that while good writing played a role in resolving a customer dispute, the resolution, not the communication, was what was rewarded: I have been rewarded for communicating effectively in written format while involved with a customer dispute. I don’t believe the reward was for the quality of my writing specifically, but the writing supported the message, and I was able to prevent the loss of significant revenue by keeping a customer informed and maintaining a balanced tone in a difficult situation.
While the primary theme in the students’ responses was that they perceived no reward, several students mentioned that they did receive compliments from their bosses, coworkers, and clients for a message or presentation that was well crafted. The few students who reported direct rewards were those whose primary responsibility is writing (e.g., a proposal writer, a marketing communication specialist), those whose companies clearly communicated the expectation for good writing (e.g., the government/military), or, in one case, an entrepreneur who said, “I am rewarded for my writing every time my brochure or my ad or my website generates business for me.” Otherwise, those who are the writers in an organization seemed to share the sentiment that “Other than the occasional ‘well-done,’ I would have to say ‘no.’ That is all right though; effective writing is to be expected in my position, and it’s what I am paid to do. My paycheck is my reward.”
Weaknesses
Based on their assessment of their skills, what others have said about their writing, and how they see their weaknesses relative to others in their organization, students overwhelmingly identified directness and being detail oriented—the very traits that most students identified as strengths—as their chief weaknesses. As one student noted, “Since I am detail oriented, I tend to get bogged down with extra words and fragments that I really do not need. I want to work on making my messages more effective with less overall writing.” Others noted that their directness leads to communication that is too emotional or not emotional enough. One student who said his communication is not emotional enough reflected, My communication style is unemotional and seldom empathic to the feelings of others. Instead, I am focused on the details and the facts. My weaknesses are when my messages are too logical or informative, they get too long. I tend to look as if I am rambling or filling my communications with redundancies.
While some students identified grammar and spelling as weaknesses, these were not a theme among most students, including students whose native language is not English. In fact, multilingual students were more likely to reflect that audiences accommodated for or ignored their (the students’) lack of writing skill or grammatical correctness, which led the multilingual students to conclude that grammar and spelling were not weaknesses in their writing.
Just as an organization’s support can provide resources for developing employees’ writing skills, so, too, can weaknesses in an organization’s writing culture affect an employee’s ability to write well. The emergent theme from the question “What are the weaknesses within your organizational culture regarding effective writing?” was that students believed their companies do not value good writing and do not provide any accountability for poor writing. The following quotes are indicative of this theme:
Unfortunately, I do not think that effective writing is something that is emphasized much at all in our organization. . . . I do think this is something that needs to be emphasized more, perhaps when doing other training.
Our organizational culture does not currently include much in the way of accountability for the quality of writing.
There is not a lot of emphasis on grammar/spelling or professionalism for employees.
Furthermore, reflections such as “I feel there isn’t an emphasis put on writing because improving it doesn’t impact our revenue or profit margin, which the emphasis always seems to be on” and “Deadlines upon deadlines lead to increased brevity and decreased style” indicated an organizational weakness in that only those operating procedures that are perceived as directly affecting the bottom line are those that receive attention. As another student said, “Effective writing is not enforced at my organization. As long as the message is delivered, there are not any issues. The only time anyone asks questions is when enough information is not provided.” One student shared this sentiment and extended the argument that if people are allocating their time and perceive no reward, their efforts are better spent elsewhere: “If you spend an hour crafting the perfect email with masterful flow and sentence structure, you won’t get any better feedback than someone who hastily wrote a few sentences just to get the email sent.”
Opportunities
Asking students to identify opportunities for improving their workplace writing assumes they think their writing needs to be improved. And as might be expected of students finishing a writing course, nearly all participants stated that writing in their organization needs to be improved. One emergent theme related to the need for improvement was the need to promote a positive public image. For instance, one student said, “Too often emails, proposals, or consulting reports are written and communicated poorly. I am repeatedly disappointed in what I see sent to our customers.” Another student reflected, “We are a global Fortune 500 company and are looked to as business leaders; our written communications should reflect this, particularly as the improvements relate to clarity, grammatical correctness, and visual appeal.”
Beyond direct references to professional image, students identified the need for improvement primarily in the areas of grammar, spelling, clarity, and visual appeal. One student summarized the need saying the company needs an “improvement in written communication with regards to consistency. . . . Too many fonts, colors, and sizes are used creating a visual mess and distracting the reader from the actual message. Grammar and spelling issues are also a concern.”
After identifying whether there was a need for improvement in writing in their organization, students were asked to identify opportunities for improving writing in their organizations from the resources they currently have and what they could bring to the organization having finished the MBA writing course. The most common opportunities students saw as feasible in their organizations were in-house/on-site workshops, web resources, and opportunities for peer editing or review. While some students identified these opportunities from existing resources in their organizations, others saw these opportunities as feasible opportunities for development or, as in the case of web resources, a matter of finding them and using them.
Threats
All students in all sections of the course identified time as a threat to writing effectively in the workplace. The comments were frequently variations on the theme of having so many tasks or deliverables that writing (especially proofreading and editing) was not something students devoted a lot of (or any) time to. As one student said, I have a lot of responsibilities on my current job that take up my entire day. I try to always make time to send professional emails that clearly explain any background and needed action. Sometimes I will find myself simply forwarding emails with one sentence notes to the recipient because I am so pressed for time.
Another student reflected, “The pressure to be productive threatens my ability to write effectively by trying to finish as many tasks as possible. Juggling meetings, projects, and deadlines leads to compromise; this in turn leads to ineffective communication.” And still another explained, I sometimes get a project or goal assigned to me with a deadline leaving no time for me to plan. Because of the short turnaround time, I simply execute the communication without the proper analysis of the most effective approach.
Students frequently used words such as overwhelmed to describe how pressed they are to juggle the many demands of their workplace. The result is that they must prioritize all tasks, including those that ensure good written communication. It is clear that when pressed for time, though, students do not make good writing a priority among all of the other tasks associated with their jobs. Thus, closely related to this theme of time not allowing them to prioritize good writing was the emergent theme on reasons why they feel no need to make writing a priority. Most students commented that they perceive that their bosses do not make good writing a priority—and if the boss does not make good writing a priority, why should they? One student said, “It is hard to improve communication in an organization when your top management level does not write effectively in the first place and does not see a need for improvement in that area.” Another student supported this logic, saying, “If consistency in documentation is not deemed important, especially by administration and directors, employees will ignore any attempt toward making an improvement in this area.” And yet a third student said, “Management’s passive stance on the need for effective communication undermines effective writing.”
Two minor themes regarding threats to using or improving writing in the workplace included technology and employee resistance. Technologies such as the Blackberry, smart phones, instant messaging, and email that enable instant communication create the perception that quick and informal communication indicates the level of thought or time required for a message.
Students also cited employee resistance as a threat to good writing in their organizations. That is, employees lack good writing skills but do not care and would therefore resist efforts to improve. One student summarized the theme as follows: [The] greatest threat[s] [to] written communications in my organization are lack of skills and lack of awareness of poor writing. Some individuals may not have a good grasp on effective writing or basic knowledge of writing mechanics. There are a few who just don’t find the need to improve or understand good writing or learn the skills.
Another student supported this statement, saying, The organizational values that most undermine effective writing are time constraints and inherent resistance. Most people at my work are very busy and do not have excess time to devote to improving messages. Plus, there are many employees that have been at the company for a long time and see no need to change how they conduct their work.
In summary, then, students’ saw their general strengths as their directness, logic, attention to detail, clarity, organization, and sense of audience. They identified their weaknesses as their directness, level of emotion, and wordiness. However, students saw opportunities for improving writing in their organization, particularly as they related to web resources, peer review, and in-house/on-site workshops. Regardless of these opportunities, students saw a lack of time and lack of management support as the chief threats to improving writing in their organizations.
Discussion
One of the most interesting aspects of these data is that across three iterations of the course, students who live in all parts of the world and work for international corporations, Fortune 500 companies, small companies, and family-owned businesses in small-town America are remarkably consistent in their assessment of their workplace writing. The themes that emerged from these analyses enable exploration of the disconnect between what employers expect from their employees’ writing and what the employees write, and provide insight to why employees who take business communications classes and have good skills might still not write effectively in the workplace.
Students did not identify skill as a primary cause of poor writing in the workplace. Clearly, time, apart from skill, is the primary driver of poor workplace writing. The students’ implied that if they had time, they would write better or take the time to develop their writing skills so that they could write better. Writing skills as a threat to good workplace writing emerged as only a minor theme and even then were seen as something others (not the student) needed to develop, though admittedly, having just finished a business writing course, students may have felt they have acquired good writing skills. At the same time, whether they felt their skills were currently good (or not), their observations of their own and others’ reasons for writing poorly were consistently that time is the primary barrier to writing well.
Furthermore, except for the discussion of opportunities for improving writing in the workplace, grammar and mechanics did not emerge as major themes in the students’ SWOT analyses. According to the literature and popular media, lack of grammar skills is one of employers’ chief complaints. Yet discussions of grammar did not figure prominently in these students’ analysis other than as opportunities for improvement. Most students did not identify grammar skills as strengths or weaknesses, and the lack of these skills did not figure prominently in the discussion of threats. However, in the discussion of time, many students referenced that they had no time for planning or proofreading their messages, which would require them to address grammar issues. Grammar skills, then, seemed embedded in the larger discussion of threats regarding a lack of time for editing or proofreading. In other words, it did not appear that students discounted the importance of grammar; however, it would be difficult to edit for correctness without taking the time to do so unless one’s skills were so strong that grammar errors were infrequent anyway.
In addition, chief themes that explain poor writing in the workplace centered on beliefs and values regarding good writing—the perception of the lack of reward for good writing; the perception that good writing is not a measurable variable when calculating factors that affect an organization’s profitability and the perception that managers or MBA students’ superiors privilege the deliverable, not the time employees might devote to communicating well. At the same time, students’ solutions for improving writing in the workplace had little to do with changing these values within their organizational cultures. Their solutions were incredibly practical—writing workshops, peer review, web resources, and templates. While it is true that organizational practices both reflect and shape organizational values (Eisenberg, Goodall, & Trethewey, 2009), there seems little consistency between offering workshops and so on as opportunities to improve writing if the organizational culture and management do not value writing. Furthermore, the opportunities suggested for improving writing (e.g., workshops, peer review, finding and using web resources) all take time—the resource the students indicated they do not have. As one student noted, “Employees only have so much time in one day, and many will look at attending a writing class as a waste.”
It seems, then, that if employers want employees to write well, they will need to more clearly communicate their expectations as well as establish good writing as an organizational value seen as central to the organization’s profitability. Doing so would include communicating the importance of allowing for and taking time for employee planning and proofing of their messages and rewarding employees whose writing positively affects the organization. This may seem idealistic, but in the absence of management support, it appears that employees will not see the need to plan, revise, and polish their messages.
Last, because the reality is that employees must write quickly, it is important that they write well enough that their writing needs minimal revision and proofreading. Good writing (not poor writing or sloppy writing) must become their habit. This may require training, but employers should see (and communicate to employees) that additional writing training is an investment that may enhance a company’s profits and functions. Surely the investment in employees’ writing skills is preferable to employers’ continued frustration with their employees’ writing.
Implications for Business Communication Curriculum and Pedagogy
Implications for business communication pedagogy come from the insights of students/participants whose primary job is writing. For them, good writing was their habit—they did not know how to do otherwise. As referenced earlier, one student whose job was writing said, “Effective writing is to be expected in my position, and it’s what I am paid to do.” Another student, who works in marketing communication and public relations, said, “I am a practiced writer. It comes easily . . . drawing from years of experience.”
Given this information, it appears the job of business communication instructors is to help students cultivate good writing as their students’ habit rather than a skill set they learn in the course of a semester-long class. And although business communications classes provide students with an excellent foundation of knowledge and help students acquire new writing behaviors, students should be provided with opportunities to further develop and sustain those behaviors. Building certificate programs, majors, or minors in business communication may be one solution. Creating a college-wide style guide that establishes writing expectations and conventions would let students know that no matter what class they take, they must demonstrate good writing. Additionally, schools may consider a college-wide policy that the grade on any writing assignment in any class be devoted to the assessment of the student’s writing. Beyond the college classroom, students completing internships may have some portion of their internship evaluation devoted to their ability to write well on the job.
In addition, WAC programs or WID opportunities may be a way to help students develop good writing habits, as WAC and WID require students to apply the skills they learned in one writing course to writing assignments in other business courses or contexts (Nicolas & Annous, 2013). Research in the WAC/WID field is extensive, but a few studies are indicative of the consensus that instructors need to incorporate writing assignments in courses beyond business communication classes so students can practice their skills and receive feedback. Dana et al. (2011), for example, found that students in a WAC program showed writing gains from their first-year writing course to their capstone course and suggest that a writing intensive curriculum that incorporates internships, partners with businesses, or otherwise provides authentic writing opportunities further develops a student’s skills. Jones (2011) also made the case for incorporating writing instruction across the accounting curriculum to ensure that students develop the skills employers seek. Nicolas and Annous (2013) also provided an extensive literature review offering evidence to suggest that students who encounter writing at several places across their curriculum or within courses of their discipline do make gains in their writing skills, their general learning, their ability to use the vocabulary of their discipline, and their understanding of effective writing in their field.
Admittedly, WAC is time intensive. However, as Laster and Russ (2010) found, business communication instructors are uniquely positioned in their disciplinary expertise to deliver writing instruction that meets the needs of the workplace. This expertise is critical, especially when working with business faculty who may not feel equipped to assess student writing (Plutsky & Wilson, 2001). Plutsky and Wilson additionally suggested that tasks associated with WAC can be managed by incorporating business writing instruction in other business classes through team teaching, developing assessment standards for writing in upper division courses, and training faculty to integrate writing into their courses.
Implications for Workplace Writing
While business communication instructors have taught and will continue to teach students to analyze audiences; negotiate the social, cultural, and ideological structures that affect communication within organizations; use standard business grammar; and write effective messages, companies must also acknowledge their role in developing employees’ writing. If companies want employees to write well, they must communicate their expectations or criteria for communication in their organizations, cultivate organizational cultures where time spent writing is seen as a productive business endeavor, and hold employees accountable for their writing.
While new employees should be able to analyze an audience and bring good writing skills to the workplace, employers need to let employees know the company standards for written communication and also let employees know when they are not meeting those standards. Kozel (2010) suggested that companies can communicate expectations in several ways: telling employees that writing is an organizational priority and demonstrating this through frequent emails and other channels of communication; using internal or external training programs to teach employees the writing skills the organization expects; providing online resources such as a statement of the company’s writing policy, a common errors page, and examples of good communication; providing a resources web page with links to dictionary, grammar, or language sites; and offering a Q&A blog where employees can post or answer questions about writing. Kozel concluded that whatever an organization does, its strategy must be tailored to meet the organization’s unique needs and may require different types of training for various types and levels of employees within the organization.
Gilcreast (2013) also offered a model for creating a workplace culture that values writing. Using the U.S. government’s Plain Language legislation requirements as his starting point, he proposes a 5-point plan that mirrors the implementation of the Plain Language Law: (a) enlisting the help of employees, middle managers, and other company leaders who are open to change and who will support a strong writing culture; (b) connecting employees’ writing training with the organization’s goals, processes, or mission; (c) measuring employees’ writing as part of their annual performance review; (d) asking employees whether current writing training and resources meet their needs; and (e) providing recognition and awards for documents that are well written.
In addition, Grabill, McCarthy, Hart-Davidson, and McLeod (2010) proposed that companies review the alignment between their communication requirements and their communication processes. That is, today’s knowledge economy (rather than the traditional production economy in the United States) requires that writing tasks be handled by employees who were not hired to be writers. Their research suggests that companies allow for flexibility in how employees approach writing within companies so that employees can discover the processes that enable them to write effectively.
Last, advice for improving writing within companies comes from the study participants (students) themselves. Those who worked for companies that provided (and in some cases required) writing training for all employees reflected that they thought their companies valued writing. There were also those few students who stated that they made the effort to write well because they knew their writing skills would be evaluated in performance reviews or that they knew good writing skills were essential to being noticed by their boss for promotion or other rewards. Though these comments were not widespread, in the context of other literature, they suggest that companies may want to provide incentives or rewards to those who write well. Furthermore, if companies believe strongly that employees must write well to be successful in their jobs, companies must evaluate writing skills in performance reviews. In addition, companies must also communicate to employees that it is not only acceptable but also expected that employees will take the time they need to ensure their writing presents the best possible image of the employee and company.
Ultimately, of course, time constrains what employees can do; however, if companies need employees to write better, this study suggests that training and education are only a part of the picture. The larger part of the picture includes providing employees with the time, incentive, and expectations for writing well in the workplace. Future research may want to examine the practices of companies with strong writing cultures to better understand what processes, beliefs, values, and practices sustain these cultures. Also interesting would be research that addresses characteristics of strong writing cultures and expectations for written communication in companies where English is the primary workplace language but not necessarily the employees’ native language. Given the global use of English in the workplace and given the increasing prominence of BELF (Business English as Lingua Franca) research, studies of workplace writing in global corporations with multilingual employees are needed. Those who are interested in this topic may find the “Language Matters” Part 1 (Louhiala-Salminen & Rogerson-Revell, 2010) and Part 2 (Rogerson-Revell & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010) special issues of the Journal of Business Communication helpful resources.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
This article is based on a presentation at the 77th annual meeting of the Association for Business Communication, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, 2012. The Institutional Review Board of University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire approved this study and the use of student comments.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.