Please rate my awa
ESSAY QUESTION:
"Poor health and high stress levels diminish the productivity of today's office workers. In order to maximize profits, companies need to provide white-collar employees with free exercise facilities and free wellness classes."
In your opinion, how accurate is the view expressed above? Use reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading to develop your position.
MY RESPONSE:
The issue that companies must provide their white collar employees with free fitness programs to cope with stress at work is interesting one, especially, in the era of globalization where the increased efficiency of a company is the key to success. This stance, upon first glance will be able to convince some its readers and some might even see great value in providing white collar employees with such free services. However, when juxtaposed with the view that employees must be motivated to take their own initiative when it comes to handling stress related activities, the flaws in the initial stance become evident. The second proposal is more attractive than the initial view proposed as its address the flaws of the initial view and also provides a holistic solution to the issue at hand.
Firstly, the assumption that free exercise facilities and wellness programs will act as stress buster for all employees is flawed. Although some employees might feel that these programs help them beat stress and increase efficiency at work others might be more inclined to use other methods of stress relief such as such spending time with their families, taking a vacation or watching television etc. This argument assumes that everyone is the same and does not account for the nuances of human behavior. Each person is different when it comes to beating stress and providing a uniform solution might not work. Therefore if employees are provided with a choice of choosing their own method for stress relief it might have a better effect on employee productivity.
Furthermore, a uniform system for stress relief might be interpreted by employees as just another company policy or rule. Such uniform programs for stress relief might be interpreted as a sanction by company management and an encroachment on their own time / privacy by employees. Employees could want to spend free time doing something else rather than doing activities which they are mandated to do due to company policy. This could have a negative effect on employee morale and, as a result, a negative effect on profits.
In addition, the argument states that such benefits i.e. free exercise and wellness classes would be provided to only white collar workers. This could have a negative effect on the morale of the employees in the company as white collar workers would get preferential treatment. It could create a divide amongst company staff. Employees regardless of their position in a organization must be treated equally and such benefits if instituted by the company must be provided to all workers and not just a privileged few.
In sum, had the issue addressed the above mentioned claims it could have greatly reinforced its message on enabling employees beat stress levels at work and hence increase overall productivity and profits. However, as it stands now its message is unlikely to resonate in the minds of its readers. If this stance is favored and instituted by a company on the premise of maximizing profits, it runs the risk of having undesired or skewed results, the reasons for which have been discussed above.
ESSAY QUESTION:
"Poor health and high stress levels diminish the productivity of today's office workers. In order to maximize profits, companies need to provide white-collar employees with free exercise facilities and free wellness classes."
In your opinion, how accurate is the view expressed above? Use reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading to develop your position.
MY RESPONSE:
The issue that companies must provide their white collar employees with free fitness programs to cope with stress at work is interesting one, especially, in the era of globalization where the increased efficiency of a company is the key to success. This stance, upon first glance will be able to convince some its readers and some might even see great value in providing white collar employees with such free services. However, when juxtaposed with the view that employees must be motivated to take their own initiative when it comes to handling stress related activities, the flaws in the initial stance become evident. The second proposal is more attractive than the initial view proposed as its address the flaws of the initial view and also provides a holistic solution to the issue at hand.
Firstly, the assumption that free exercise facilities and wellness programs will act as stress buster for all employees is flawed. Although some employees might feel that these programs help them beat stress and increase efficiency at work others might be more inclined to use other methods of stress relief such as such spending time with their families, taking a vacation or watching television etc. This argument assumes that everyone is the same and does not account for the nuances of human behavior. Each person is different when it comes to beating stress and providing a uniform solution might not work. Therefore if employees are provided with a choice of choosing their own method for stress relief it might have a better effect on employee productivity.
Furthermore, a uniform system for stress relief might be interpreted by employees as just another company policy or rule. Such uniform programs for stress relief might be interpreted as a sanction by company management and an encroachment on their own time / privacy by employees. Employees could want to spend free time doing something else rather than doing activities which they are mandated to do due to company policy. This could have a negative effect on employee morale and, as a result, a negative effect on profits.
In addition, the argument states that such benefits i.e. free exercise and wellness classes would be provided to only white collar workers. This could have a negative effect on the morale of the employees in the company as white collar workers would get preferential treatment. It could create a divide amongst company staff. Employees regardless of their position in a organization must be treated equally and such benefits if instituted by the company must be provided to all workers and not just a privileged few.
In sum, had the issue addressed the above mentioned claims it could have greatly reinforced its message on enabling employees beat stress levels at work and hence increase overall productivity and profits. However, as it stands now its message is unlikely to resonate in the minds of its readers. If this stance is favored and instituted by a company on the premise of maximizing profits, it runs the risk of having undesired or skewed results, the reasons for which have been discussed above.
