But the finding that more than one in five workers were in jobs that did not appear to make full use of their literacy skills is troubling,, particularly because public discussions of the "skills gap" in the labor force frequently imply that the problem is one of a shortage of skilled workers, not skilled jobs.³ The 5% to 11% placed in the skill deficit category are also cause for concern, but for different reasons (that is, they may not be capable of performing their jobs adequately). Even if the measures of fit and mismatch were calculated differently, thus raising or lowering the proportions in the surplus and deficit categories, questions would remain about the relatively poor fit between workers' literacy skills and their jobs.

Although more Canadians are employed in settings roughly compatible with their literacy skills, a good many are not well-matched to their job requirements. Within the mismatch categories, a greater proportion experience a skill surplus (or underemployment) than a skill deficit (insufficient literacy skills for one's job).

The IALS prose, document and quantitative literacy scales have proved to be highly useful for examining literacy fit and mismatch in the Canadian workplace. Yet it is also true that other skills influence success in the workplace. Informal or working knowledge, as well as the tacit skills that many workers acquire while working and interacting with co-workers, is equally important (Harper, 1987; Collins, Balmuth and jean, 1989; Damon, 1991). In fact, adults who do not read well sometimes develop surprisingly sophisticated methods of coping with their literacy handicap (Fingeret, 1990; Gowen, 1994). Moreover, the absence of "hard" literacy skills does not necessarily mean a lack of "soft" teamwork and oral communication skills.⁴ Hence, it must be remembered that only one, albeit important, dimension of the workplace skills equation is examined here. Workplace literacy requirements and workplace skills may need to be defined and measured more generally in the future.