Apogee’s business department claims that the company was more profitable when they operated out of only one location, and they they need to revert back to that condition in order to be more profitable. Well, many considerations could be made to supplement this statement. To better support the argument, it would be worthwhile to consider economic conditions in the two time periods. If the economy has only gotten better, then maybe it can be argued that the company is doing something wrong. Also, it would be beneficial to elaborate on what made the company grow. If the company diversified and got involved in multiple industries, then we have to evaluate how those industries are performing. If Apogee is involved in three different industries in three different locations, and only one of those sections of Apogee is not performing, then they will still need to remain separated and utilize the success of those two industries. Such cutbacks, even when a location may not be performing very well, will include more costs. The business department must evaluate how much it is going to cost to either lay off or relocate a certain amount of people. If the relocation and severance expenses are far more significant than that location’s lacking performance, Apogee will need to keep them there and possibly consider some internal restructuring to boost productivity. This is not to say that the employees necessarily need supervision, as the argument assumes, but that it might be a nice change of pace for the workers, and a worthwhile attempt for Apogee. Not to mention, better supervision could be seen as employees who need to be watched closely, or managers who are incapable of maximizing the output of their groups. Evaluating these different levels of the company would help to express what kind of reshaping might be needed
In making numerous assumptions and making vague claims, this argument fails to be cogent and persuasive.
