The following appeared in a memorandum from the human resources department of Diversified Manufacturing:

"Managers at our central office report that their employees tend to be most productive in the days immediately preceding a vacation. To help counteract our declining market share, we could increase the productivity of our professional staff members, who currently receive four weeks paid vacation a year, by limiting them to a maximum of one week's continuous vacation time. They will thus take more vacation breaks during a year and give us more days of maximum productivity."

----

The author of the memorandum claims that in order to increase market share, they must limit professional staff members to a maximum of one weeks continuous vacation time. This reasoning comes from the managers at their central office, who have infered that their staff are most productive in the days immediately pending a vacation. Unfortunately, without any supporting evidence, the argument is inherently flawed for the following reasons.

Primarily, the linkage between productivity and increaed market share is tenuous at best. There is no underlying evidence to support this. The author could expand by suggesting that the product or service being sold by the company is in high demand, which would result in all the increased output being consumed. Even though this could result in an increase in market share, it is still not a certainty without knowing the current market environment, the dominance of competitors, or the loyalty of their customers.

Secondly, the author does not provide any evidence for the managers claim of increased productiviy before a vacation. One does not know if this is based on data from actual employee records, or just from the managers casual observations. Furthermore, the claim itself is vague. How can one be sure if productivity increases most before a two day holiday and a two week holiday, but least before a one week holiday. If this were true, based on the authors claims, their market share would actually decrease, not increase.

On the other hand, the authors argument could be valid if they provided the underlying evidence discussed above, since the claim is not completely unreasonable. A piece of evidence showing the linkage between market share and employee performance could be an example.

However, in conclusion, the the lack of evidence in the memorandum has deamed it invalid. One can not take the claims at face value without any anecdotal examples or information about the dynamics of the market environment.