ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in an article in a human resources magazine:
"Six months ago, in an experiment aimed at boosting worker productivity, Company Z started providing free gourmet lunches to its employees. The Company hoped that these office lunches would encourage employees to remain in the building during lunch-hour and motivate employees to work harder throughout the day. A survey found that soon after the lunch program was implemented, the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically. During this same period, the Company's profits also increased substantially. Thus, it is safe to say that the lunch program was a huge success and that Company Z should make the program permanent."
YOUR RESPONSE:
Incentives provided to employees typically motivate employees to put in more effort towards work. Company Z plans to use this strategy by providing its employees gourmet lunches. Based on a survey of this lunch program, the author believes the program might be a possible cause for increased company profits, and therefore should be made permanent. Although the argument might have some merit, there are flaws in his premise and assumptions. The validity of the survey and the correlation assumed for the argument seem to weaken it.
One of the issues with the author's argument lies in his claim that the strategy of gourmet lunches will encourage employees to work harder. The employees might have the desire to stay in office during work hours, but their motivation might not be driven with increasing productivity. The employees might save on their lunch expenses but they might not actually put in the effort the company expects them to put during the work hours. There also is a possibility that a lot of employees prefer taking their lunch breaks outside of work. This situation will hamper Company Z's plan related to the idea of free lunches. Without providing the actually productivity statistics, the company cannot conclude that this program has led to increased employee productivity and hence can be made permanent.
Secondly, the survey data used as a support for improved employee productivity provides very minimum detail to reach the conclusion. The increase in average number of work hours by Company Z employees does not tell us the number of work hours for each employee. The already over achieving and hard working employees are probably putting in more effort than the underachieving employees. Although this trend will increase the average number of work hours for employees, but this working trend might decrease the productivity of overachieving employees. The end result of this trend does not justify increased profits for Company Z. The author can strengthen his position by giving a detailed description of individual employee work hours.
Moreover, the company assumes the increased productivity triggered by the lunch program leads to increased profits. The increase in profits might just be an effect of some other cause. It could be possible that the company is experiencing exceptional sales for an already existing product, leading to increased profit. The increased profits could also be a cause of the marketing strategy of the business group. The author simply correlates the results of survey to the success of the program. What if the increased profits gave the employees more motivation to work harder since the employees have a share in the company? This would cast a doubt on the author's argument. If the author can prove the statistics used to show a direct relation between the lunch program and increased profits, then his claim will be more convincible.
In sum, the author has neglected the importance of providing additional evidence to support his argument. Had he provide statistics for the correlation between increased number of employee work hours and increased company profits, he would have not only strengthened his argument but also made his argument more convincing.
The following appeared in an article in a human resources magazine:
"Six months ago, in an experiment aimed at boosting worker productivity, Company Z started providing free gourmet lunches to its employees. The Company hoped that these office lunches would encourage employees to remain in the building during lunch-hour and motivate employees to work harder throughout the day. A survey found that soon after the lunch program was implemented, the average number of hours worked by most Company Z employees increased dramatically. During this same period, the Company's profits also increased substantially. Thus, it is safe to say that the lunch program was a huge success and that Company Z should make the program permanent."
YOUR RESPONSE:
Incentives provided to employees typically motivate employees to put in more effort towards work. Company Z plans to use this strategy by providing its employees gourmet lunches. Based on a survey of this lunch program, the author believes the program might be a possible cause for increased company profits, and therefore should be made permanent. Although the argument might have some merit, there are flaws in his premise and assumptions. The validity of the survey and the correlation assumed for the argument seem to weaken it.
One of the issues with the author's argument lies in his claim that the strategy of gourmet lunches will encourage employees to work harder. The employees might have the desire to stay in office during work hours, but their motivation might not be driven with increasing productivity. The employees might save on their lunch expenses but they might not actually put in the effort the company expects them to put during the work hours. There also is a possibility that a lot of employees prefer taking their lunch breaks outside of work. This situation will hamper Company Z's plan related to the idea of free lunches. Without providing the actually productivity statistics, the company cannot conclude that this program has led to increased employee productivity and hence can be made permanent.
Secondly, the survey data used as a support for improved employee productivity provides very minimum detail to reach the conclusion. The increase in average number of work hours by Company Z employees does not tell us the number of work hours for each employee. The already over achieving and hard working employees are probably putting in more effort than the underachieving employees. Although this trend will increase the average number of work hours for employees, but this working trend might decrease the productivity of overachieving employees. The end result of this trend does not justify increased profits for Company Z. The author can strengthen his position by giving a detailed description of individual employee work hours.
Moreover, the company assumes the increased productivity triggered by the lunch program leads to increased profits. The increase in profits might just be an effect of some other cause. It could be possible that the company is experiencing exceptional sales for an already existing product, leading to increased profit. The increased profits could also be a cause of the marketing strategy of the business group. The author simply correlates the results of survey to the success of the program. What if the increased profits gave the employees more motivation to work harder since the employees have a share in the company? This would cast a doubt on the author's argument. If the author can prove the statistics used to show a direct relation between the lunch program and increased profits, then his claim will be more convincible.
In sum, the author has neglected the importance of providing additional evidence to support his argument. Had he provide statistics for the correlation between increased number of employee work hours and increased company profits, he would have not only strengthened his argument but also made his argument more convincing.
