Investigating the 'crisis': production workers' literacy and numeracy practices

In recent years in Australia there has been a renewed focus on the issue of literacy and numeracy in the workplace. This has been led, in part, by the 2006 Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey, conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which indicated that around half of Australia’s adult population had literacy and numeracy skills at levels 1 and 2 (on a five-point scale), levels typically seen as insufficient to enable an individual to fully participate in the modern economy. Both national and international research have also demonstrated a positive relationship between increasing literacy and numeracy skills and labour market outcomes, such as better employment opportunities and higher wages. On the basis of these findings and surveys of employers’ views, key industry groups, such as the Australian Industry Group, have advocated greater investment in addressing the low literacy and numeracy skills of Australian workers.

This research provides an interesting perspective on this literacy ‘crisis’ by focusing on the workers’ views of the extent of literacy and numeracy they require to undertake their jobs. Using an ethnographic approach, production workers in three manufacturing companies moving to lean production processes, along with their managers and trainers, were interviewed and observed. Manufacturing was chosen as it generally has a lower proportion of workers with formally recognised skills, while lean production is seen as requiring higher literacy and numeracy skills.

The key message from this research was that improving literacy and numeracy as a means for improving productivity was not considered necessary by workers, trainers and managers. Their general view was that tasks were done proficiently and there was no evidence to support the view that the workers’ literacy was inadequate.

This does not mean that improved literacy and numeracy would not be beneficial; for example, improved literacy may well help workers to better understand their workplace rights and provide greater opportunities for leadership roles and greater labour mobility.

Tom Karmel
Managing Director, NCVER
 
 

In Australian Government reports, as well as those of industry, skills and media organisations, there is a consistent message that many workers lack literacy and numeracy skills, which in turn leads to lower productivity levels in workplaces. Evidence for these low skills is provided mainly through the findings of large-scale adult literacy and numeracy surveys, such as the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS; 2008), and also through surveys of employers’ perspectives on their workers’ literacy and numeracy. Some commentators and researchers refer to the extent and implications of these low literacy and numeracy skills as a ‘crisis’.

The aim of this research was to investigate this crisis more closely. Using an ethnographic approach we examined literacy and numeracy as social practices (workplace practices in this research), rather than generic skills. We were interested in the ways in which literacy and numeracy were embedded in workplace practices and how workers managed these practices in their everyday work, rather than in their skill levels, which could be demonstrated on a standardised assessment. The following research questions guided the research:

• What are production workers' literacy and numeracy practices in manufacturing workplaces?
• What are the various perspectives of production workers, trainers, supervisors and employers, on the literacy and numeracy practices, problems and issues involved in production work in competitive manufacturing?
• How do production workers experience learning in their training programs and on the job?

The research aimed to identify insights from the findings that could form the basis of recommendations for improving how literacy and numeracy practices might be learnt and managed by production workers on the job and in training.

Production workers in manufacturing companies transitioning to lean production processes were the focus of this study, a focus largely due to the documented lower overall levels of manufacturing workers’ formally recognised skills (compared with the Australian workforce as a whole). We also received advice from the relevant industry peak body that the shift to lean production resulted in the need to improve the literacy and numeracy levels of workers. In Australia, the term ‘competitive manufacturing’ is often used interchangeably with ‘lean’ production and describes a highly influential form of workplace organisation which derives largely from Japanese production methods. Increased efficiency, involving the ongoing reduction of resources, surplus production and stock, and waste, is the aim of this approach. Three manufacturing companies at different stages of introducing lean processes were chosen as sites for research. Each company was visited multiple times by the researchers to observe workers perform their work roles and to conduct semi-structured interviews with workers, managers and trainers. The interviews focused on identifying literacy and numeracy embedded in workplace practices, how literacy and numeracy practices at work were perceived by the workers, trainers and managers in the three companies, and what approaches to training were being adopted.

The observations and interviews revealed that literacy and numeracy were highly embedded in the various work practices. Job cards, for example, were a key workplace text common to all three companies and integral to efficient production. All workers used job cards, although for most workers this involved a routine with familiar textual features, resulting in very few mistakes. In two of the workplaces, the workers used advanced computer-aided technologies, and in these contexts the literacy and numeracy practices could be described (following research by Hoyles et al. 2010) as ‘techno-mathematical literacies’ — the integration of mathematical, textual and technological meaning-making, in which mathematical calculations were often invisible because they were deeply embedded in the computer software programs. In most cases, neither the workers nor the managers described their work as involving a great deal of literacy or numeracy. In view of the embedded nature of literacy and numeracy and the high degree of skills demonstrated by workers undertaking their specific work tasks, it was difficult to see how any literacy or numeracy training delivered separately from these work tasks could improve job performance.

In all three companies none of the workers and trainers interviewed perceived the need for improving the literacy and numeracy levels of their workplaces. Managers also generally failed to see a direct link between improving workers’ literacy and numeracy and improved productivity in their companies. Workers were performing their job tasks proficiently, despite the workers (and trainers and managers) acknowledging that in a normative sense the workers may have lacked spoken English, literacy and numeracy ‘skills’. Thus, the situation in these companies was at odds with national policy messages, which see low literacy and numeracy skills linked to low productivity.

All three companies were involved in training programs to introduce or further implement lean production processes. The training approaches were different across the three sites: in one company a limited introductory lean course was delivered only to groups of workers assessed to have literacy and numeracy needs. In another company approximately half of the production workforce and two managers had completed the Certificate III in Competitive Manufacturing, and some lean processes had been introduced across the production work. In the third company lean production training was obligatory for the whole production workforce and the lean production ‘culture’ was entrenched in the company. A taxonomy of embedded literacy and numeracy in workplace learning developed recently by Derrick (2012) was used as a framework to describe the training models in the three sites.

One area of workplace literacy and numeracy practices identified in the research was workers’ conditions of employment, an area neglected in the training conducted in all three companies and in the research literature generally. Aspects such as the role of literacy and numeracy practices in how workers understand and negotiate their employment rights and conditions rarely feature in policy messages as part of the literacy and numeracy crisis, even though, from the workers’ perspectives, these are important aspects of their work.

The insights from the findings provided suggestions for change. Adopting a social practice approach was found to uncover different types of understandings about literacy and numeracy in the workplace. As indicated, from the perspectives of workers, trainers and management little support was found for the notion of a literacy and numeracy crisis in workplaces. The study suggested that ethnographic studies, which enable a social practice approach, be considered alongside other sources for informing workplace literacy and numeracy policies. The study also suggested that social practice models of workplace learning should be supported; in particular, this related to encouraging the view that cultural and linguistic diversity in the workplace could potentially be productive assets in a workplace. Finally, the study suggested the need for highlighting literacy and numeracy related to workers’ employment conditions and rights. In this regard, the development of a ‘Workplace Champions’ program should be explored.