-
rb90
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:14 am
- Location: India
- GMAT Score:710
"Employees always perform better when given a say in determining the boundaries of their roles within a company."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
------
The statement "Employees always perform better when given a say in determining the boundaries of their roles within a company " makes complete sense according to me.
Even though an employee may have qualifications which show him to be a master of more than one trade, he can nonetheless be jack of only one. An employee with who is a college graduate can be given quite a few roles in an organisation. Such roles may include those of a marketeer, a salesman, Personal Relations(PR) or a clerk.
An organisation would want that an employee be knowledgable about more than one department so that in case of an emergency in a particular department, he can be a temporary employee of that department. While this may be practical in the short run, it will be to the detriment of the employee as well as the company in the long run.The reason being that an employee has certain expectations when working in a company. Such expectations may include that of a promotion or a raise.
An employee can only be promoted if he consistently performs well in his respective department. Practice makes perfect and continuously working in the same department will significantly sharpen the employee's skills. Now, if he is juggled around from department X to department Y and then to department Z, before coming back to his oroginal department (X) , will he be satisfied with the role assigned? Will he enjoy being pushed around? While this situation might be to a lesser extent in the short run, it will aggrevate to such an extent in the long run that the employee will feel dissatisfied with his role. Infact he wont know his ACTUAL role. He will be confused about his skills and capability. Such a situation might cause him to resign and try his luck in another organisation. Will this do any good to the organisation? Will the amount paid as salary really pay dividends to the company? The answer is No.Infact this wont even do any good for the employee.
Thus, an organisation should sooner than later assign specific tasks to the employee based on his skills, talents and interests. He should be given a fair chance to express his department/role of interest. For example, if an employee is good in communication skills, he can given the post of a PR in the company. Here, he may be juggled around initially, from the post of a PR to that of HR or junior spokesperson of the company. Eventually he may zero in on the role of a PR or a junior spokesperson, provided he is given the chance to give his feedback on the different roles. Its this feedback which includes the boundaries of his roles, within which he feels he can really hone/develop his skills. In other words, a company should understand that every person is good in only a particular role.Once that suitable role is found(in which the interests of the employee lies) the employee should be encouraged to challenge the extent of his skills , thus making him competent as well as increasing effiiency if his particular department, thus optimising the performance of the company.
The statement "Employees always perform better when given a say in determining the boundaries of their roles within a company " thus is valid and true to the fullest extent. Making the employee choose his role rather than the company doing so will in the long run pay rich dividends to the company.After all, a company is only as good as its employees!
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
------
The statement "Employees always perform better when given a say in determining the boundaries of their roles within a company " makes complete sense according to me.
Even though an employee may have qualifications which show him to be a master of more than one trade, he can nonetheless be jack of only one. An employee with who is a college graduate can be given quite a few roles in an organisation. Such roles may include those of a marketeer, a salesman, Personal Relations(PR) or a clerk.
An organisation would want that an employee be knowledgable about more than one department so that in case of an emergency in a particular department, he can be a temporary employee of that department. While this may be practical in the short run, it will be to the detriment of the employee as well as the company in the long run.The reason being that an employee has certain expectations when working in a company. Such expectations may include that of a promotion or a raise.
An employee can only be promoted if he consistently performs well in his respective department. Practice makes perfect and continuously working in the same department will significantly sharpen the employee's skills. Now, if he is juggled around from department X to department Y and then to department Z, before coming back to his oroginal department (X) , will he be satisfied with the role assigned? Will he enjoy being pushed around? While this situation might be to a lesser extent in the short run, it will aggrevate to such an extent in the long run that the employee will feel dissatisfied with his role. Infact he wont know his ACTUAL role. He will be confused about his skills and capability. Such a situation might cause him to resign and try his luck in another organisation. Will this do any good to the organisation? Will the amount paid as salary really pay dividends to the company? The answer is No.Infact this wont even do any good for the employee.
Thus, an organisation should sooner than later assign specific tasks to the employee based on his skills, talents and interests. He should be given a fair chance to express his department/role of interest. For example, if an employee is good in communication skills, he can given the post of a PR in the company. Here, he may be juggled around initially, from the post of a PR to that of HR or junior spokesperson of the company. Eventually he may zero in on the role of a PR or a junior spokesperson, provided he is given the chance to give his feedback on the different roles. Its this feedback which includes the boundaries of his roles, within which he feels he can really hone/develop his skills. In other words, a company should understand that every person is good in only a particular role.Once that suitable role is found(in which the interests of the employee lies) the employee should be encouraged to challenge the extent of his skills , thus making him competent as well as increasing effiiency if his particular department, thus optimising the performance of the company.
The statement "Employees always perform better when given a say in determining the boundaries of their roles within a company " thus is valid and true to the fullest extent. Making the employee choose his role rather than the company doing so will in the long run pay rich dividends to the company.After all, a company is only as good as its employees!
