I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

[Cambon]

Sorry LDV. If a person puts attention to detail into simple things like communication, it will extend into their day to day life, including their job. This is why many firms insist on "X" number of GCSE passes, one of which must be English.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think that is far too simplistic - it doesn't take into account that people can be very educated or intelligent and can easily be sloppy. I agree to some extent, but such a outlook is purely focused on finding the most obsequious of people. These are the best at school and in performing tasks at most jobs. And in a sense, that is all that is wanted - obedient workers who do their tasks well. Obviously I have an issue with such obedience. But such an outlook misses the skills and abilities of those who haven't followed the same line at school and who be brilliant workers for other reasons. Overall, depends on what you are looking for. If this man was a accountant then I might agree more than someone working where fresh or novel thinking was required.

 

And vice-versa. But to go along your line of thinking and agreement with this man, would you have any problem substituting a grammar test with a colouring test, where points go for keeping within the line and showing care and attention to the work? Or do you want to press the matter of grammar in particular?

[IOMRS97]

GD4ELI Yes, people can brush on their grammar. But unless they are given the message that it is absolutely necessary for a job then they won't delve into the books. I think people should think it is very important simply for communioation with others. But the thinking of this guy is slightly different. He thinks that it signifies sloppiness in the main. I disagree.

I think it is just his bugbear. Something that niggles him and having his position he has the opportunity to get some release.

 

(Thanks for the image though. Might buy that)

 

Warning - it's a *very* thick book, ~ 1,500 pages or more.

 

What the author of the article is implying is that those who already take a pride in their written and spoken language will take pride in their work in general. Innit?

Any pictures in the book?

[P.K.]

"You see, at it's core, code is prose"

 

He wrote its not it's. You're fired

 

Very fair.

 

In my defence M'Lud I did cut and paste the original post but couldn't remove the annoying italics. However I do admit I included the offending apostrophe and have no other recourse than to throw myself to the mercy of the court.

[pongo]

I think that it demonstrates rather well that it is dangerous to declare standards.

 

On the one hand, it weirds me out if I get email from someone at a business who does not seem to know when to use there, their or they're. On the other hand, LDV has made a good point about a colouring-in test.

 

Ultimately I think that companies have a right to recruit in their own image and according to what they believe their customers are going to expect. If that means attention to grammar then I do not think that is any different from looking at shoes and socks or how people say their Hs or tie a knot. It might not be the deciding factor but there is no reason why it should not be part of that deciding.

[P.K.]

But such an outlook misses the skills and abilities of those who haven't followed the same line at school and who be brilliant workers for other reasons. Overall, depends on what you are looking for. If this man was a accountant then I might agree more than someone working where fresh or novel thinking was required.

 

But as all good leaders/managers know - you can't force people to have good ideas.

[Alias]

I think that it demonstrates rather well that it is dangerous to declare standards.

 

On the one hand, it weirds me out if I get email from someone at a business who does not seem to know when to use there, their or they're. On the other hand, LDV has made a good point about a colouring-in test.

 

Ultimately I think that companies have a right to recruit in their own image and according to what they believe their customers are going to expect. If that means attention to grammar then I do not think that is any different from looking at shoes and socks or how people say their Hs or tie a knot. It might not be the deciding factor but there is no reason why it should not be part of that deciding.

 

I'm not fully convinced; I think a good part of it is intellectual snobbery. There are places where grammar matters (external correspondence) but there's also a lot of times that it doesn't (e.g. now). Good communication is always necessary, but writing somebody off because of a misplaced comma or apostrophe strikes me as ignorance and laziness on the viewer's half. It's always easier to find negatives in people and easier to spot mistakes, and this is just another (lazy) way of making easy choices.

 

Sure it will be relevant in a lot of roles, but making generalisations based upon it is flawed.

 

One example : Take the Americanization of the language (especially in tech), I now have no idea whether grey or gray is 'correct', and there are many other similar words which I may not be consistent in writing with without a regionalised spellchecker. Oh noes, don't employ me.

 

edit to add: Of course submitting a job app or similar without spell/grammar checking is careless and should probably write you out of the role, but this isn't excluding because of poor grammar. This is no different than excluding you for not replying with the correct information (e.g. when ads say to mention the job ref in the title).

[Tempus Fugit]

would you object to someone having to pass a colour-vision test if they would be dealing with colours in the job, such as photography, printing or television ?

seems about the same requirement to me

[Alias]

would you object to someone having to pass a colour-vision test if they would be dealing with colours in the job, such as photography, printing or television ?

seems about the same requirement to me

 

Perhaps if the person's not capable of good grammar/using correction tools. But if they are, it's a matter of verbosity - whereas correct grammar may be needed for dealing with partners and clients, why is it essential that grammar is always perfect? Your post's grammar isn't perfect, if this forum wasn't anonymous is that evidence enough to exclude you from candidacies for future jobs?

 

Even then, that article talked about comma and semi-colon placement - something many of us probably don't get right. There are situations where grammar is important, but to bluntly use it as a cutoff for people who have made small mistakes is just idleness.

[MilitantDogOwner]

would you object to someone having to pass a colour-vision test if they would be dealing with colours in the job, such as photography, printing or television ?

seems about the same requirement to me

 

I would say that in certain professions this would be essential.

 

As an electronics engineer in the RAF, colour blindness would have been fatal.

 

"The 14KV HT line? Yeah, its the red one." "Erm....which one is the red one"....BOOM!!!!!!!!

[Endovelicus]

 

Still the best, simple guide to the correct use of grammar. (And no, I don't claim to be adept at it!)

[Merkin]

Mis-aligned grammar is something I can normally live with unless the person's job requires precision, like a newspaper journalist or a proofreader.

 

People writing in text chat is worthy of a slap though, ideally with a big wet wriggly eel.

[P.K.]

I'm not fully convinced; I think a good part of it is intellectual snobbery. There are places where grammar matters (external correspondence) but there's also a lot of times that it doesn't (e.g. now). Good communication is always necessary, but writing somebody off because of a misplaced comma or apostrophe strikes me as ignorance and laziness on the viewer's half. It's always easier to find negatives in people and easier to spot mistakes, and this is just another (lazy) way of making easy choices.

 

Ah yes, the David Brent candidate selection methodology:

 

"You don't want to hire unlucky people. So the first thing I do is throw half the CV's in the bin. That's the unlucky ones dealt with."

 

The work experience placements we would get from the local "university" could barely string a sentence together. Their written "work" was just appalling. As something like 90% of our workload was with those to whom English was a second language we had to quarantine the placements to prevent them from spreading confusion.

 

When you're telling folks what to do good grammar and syntax is important to remove any ambiguity. So no, it's not intellectual snobbery but just sound business sense.

[Blade Runner]

When I look at taking on a new employee, especially younger ones, it might sound a bit strange but I always try to watch them when they walk a little distance, for example from their car to the building.

 

In my experience a slow, hunched shoulder, slouch of a walk indicates a not very productive worker. A straight backed thrusting stride type walk, even with a bit of a near run thrown in to their stride, usually pairs with a hard worker.

 

As for Grammar, as you can see I cant really make any comment!

[credente]

Grammar is important. Even missing a single comma can lead to extraordinary results such as this one (from The Times) about a documentary series:

 

“Highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector”.