All jobs involve the use of language as a mode of expressing oneself. This means that, even if coherence in grammar may not be a prerequisite for a job opening, the skill is required to some extent in the physical job environment. Amid this relevance of grammar to job applicants and employees, the question that remains is whether grammar is a critical tool for turning away potential employees with massive capabilities on the key job requirements fields.
Kyle Wiens, the chief executive officer of iFixit and the founder of Dozuki, categorically states that he cannot hire people who do not know their way around maneuvering with grammar. His reasoning for taking this non-flexible stand is that every aspect of the business involves different extents of details. For instance, he argues that in programming, the junk required is a logic flow details. However, programming is one of the areas of the whole business that requires certain specialized details to accomplish the necessary tasks.
Hence, “when it comes to my whole business, details are everything” (Wiens Para.13). Consequently, Wiens believes that the only applicants whose resumes are worth a second glance are the ones who mind details of grammar. He argues that people who are equipped with details of grammar are also likely to make fewer mistakes when executing other tasks not related to writing such as “stocking shelves or labeling parts” (Wiens Para 11).
Therefore, to avoid sloppy mistakes in the company, the CEO argues that grammar test is the litmus for proving the capacity of the potential employs to demonstrate their ability to pay attention to details as claimed in their resumes. Arguably, Wiens deploys zero tolerance approach to the importance of grammar in work settings.
Opposed to the approach of Wiens to the importance of grammar in job applications and employees, Mc Whorter argues that such an approach is questionable. On the other hand, Rushkoff argues, “without grammar, we lose the agreed-upon standards about what means what” (para.1) .For instance, Mc Whorter says that, for jobs that are beyond communication such as technical writing, “requirements that viable candidates write with Strunk and White on their minds are highly questionable” (Mc Whorter Para.2).
The argument here is that, while Wiens thinks that the capacity of employees to pay critical attention to details of grammar may mean that they also posses the capacity to pay attention to other important details not related to grammar, Mc Whorter and Rushkoff think that people have differing capacities to pay attention to differing things. Consequently, the fact that one is proficient in paying details to one aspect of a job does not necessarily imply that he or she would be so in any other aspect.
However, although the authors seem not to agree on the concept of zero tolerance to grammar, they deploy similar lines of view. In this context, Mc Whorter argues, “flubbing the difference between “it’s” and “its” is not a sign of mental laxness or congenital inattention to detail” (Para.3) while Wiens says that “After all, grammar has nothing to do with job performance, creativity, or intelligence” (Para.10). People who do not have fluency in grammar can delegate certain responsibilities to a certain limitation.
For instance, such people cannot be given tasks involving laying down legal documents and or promotional a material (Mc Whorter Para.5). Apparently, this is why Wiens is concerned about the necessity of zero tolerance approach towards hiring people based on their capacity to communicate flawlessly in grammar. This is so since every task of business entails some form of creating awareness and or conducting business in accordance to some laid out legal procedures that often require documentation.
Works Cited
Mc Whorter, John. Good Applicants with Bad Grammar, 2012. Web.
Rushkoff, Douglas. It’s Not Just Rules; It’s Clear Thinking, 2012. Web.
Wiens, Kyle. I Won’t Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar: Here’s Why, 2012. Web.