Group #2: Analysis of Issue
Seniority (years of service) should not be the basis of employee compensation. Employees should be promoted and given raises solely on the basis of their work performance and merit. That is a better way to encourage high productivity.
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 above topic of discussion highlights one of the commonest strategy dilemma of today´s corporate world : whom to compensate ? Would the right choice be the one who has worked in the same company for 25 years or the one who has, in a short period of time achieved many credentials to his credit. Both viewpoints have their pros and cons : the senior candidate counting on his years of experience and maturity in handling his paraphernalia, or the one who has shown extreme dynamism and shown results at a rapid phase. One having a neutral look at things, it would naturally appear to us that age has nothing to do with the compensation, rather the value of the work holds more importance. There could be various reasons attributed to this.
On the forefront, most of the new companies need a new breeze of fresh ideas. Gone are the days when fat bosses used to contact his clients through telephone , today is the age of rapid emailing and drawing maximum input. In a state of affairs where company´s inner productivity reflects its external image, a constant need to keep the sharp minds grinding their grey cells is inevitable.Thereby even the eldest personnel cannot sit quiet and work like sinecures. Everyone has to go great guns whoever he might be , a good compensation for the productive one keeps one and all motivated.
Secondly , from worker´s perspective, a compensation for the dynamic is always a charming factor to keep him employed. No one likes to work in an environment where their personal effort is represented by the senior person in different forums. Todays educated professional is bold and blind to the age difference. he is wary of new developments and ways to achieve the same. If not compensated, he has no fear in quitting and joining an enterprise where personal freedom is kindled. No wonder most of the new age MBA professionals fear joining Public sector companies with substantial payment package , only because of the fear the profit would not reach in their own hands. In a situation like this, compensation must be aimed at enhancing productivity.
lastly , if there is a"sedimentation" in the company hierarchy , there is a high chance of people getting involved in non productive activities. Staying at home and raising kids, investing their free money into other businesses and all those retirement options which simply formalises the office-going affair dramatically mars the overall growth of company. Senior people need to know they all are wheels of company driving the company ahead, failure of laggardness of one is unbearable to others.
In sum , it is fairly accepted that " no work , no pay" is the way to go. There is no money for the worthless. One needs to prove his worth and gladly most new companies like Goldman Sachs, Google , Facebook are run by dynamic youth who know how to generate money and write success for themselves, while other companies are still struggling. A lively example could be the expulsion of yesteryear cricket star Saurav Ganguly from Indian cricket team , even though he holds 20 years of experience , fairly to the shock of his durable fans. A company can pay homage and respect to the productive one through this compensation itself. Conversely, for the returns one needs to perform consistently.
Seniority (years of service) should not be the basis of employee compensation. Employees should be promoted and given raises solely on the basis of their work performance and merit. That is a better way to encourage high productivity.
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 above topic of discussion highlights one of the commonest strategy dilemma of today´s corporate world : whom to compensate ? Would the right choice be the one who has worked in the same company for 25 years or the one who has, in a short period of time achieved many credentials to his credit. Both viewpoints have their pros and cons : the senior candidate counting on his years of experience and maturity in handling his paraphernalia, or the one who has shown extreme dynamism and shown results at a rapid phase. One having a neutral look at things, it would naturally appear to us that age has nothing to do with the compensation, rather the value of the work holds more importance. There could be various reasons attributed to this.
On the forefront, most of the new companies need a new breeze of fresh ideas. Gone are the days when fat bosses used to contact his clients through telephone , today is the age of rapid emailing and drawing maximum input. In a state of affairs where company´s inner productivity reflects its external image, a constant need to keep the sharp minds grinding their grey cells is inevitable.Thereby even the eldest personnel cannot sit quiet and work like sinecures. Everyone has to go great guns whoever he might be , a good compensation for the productive one keeps one and all motivated.
Secondly , from worker´s perspective, a compensation for the dynamic is always a charming factor to keep him employed. No one likes to work in an environment where their personal effort is represented by the senior person in different forums. Todays educated professional is bold and blind to the age difference. he is wary of new developments and ways to achieve the same. If not compensated, he has no fear in quitting and joining an enterprise where personal freedom is kindled. No wonder most of the new age MBA professionals fear joining Public sector companies with substantial payment package , only because of the fear the profit would not reach in their own hands. In a situation like this, compensation must be aimed at enhancing productivity.
lastly , if there is a"sedimentation" in the company hierarchy , there is a high chance of people getting involved in non productive activities. Staying at home and raising kids, investing their free money into other businesses and all those retirement options which simply formalises the office-going affair dramatically mars the overall growth of company. Senior people need to know they all are wheels of company driving the company ahead, failure of laggardness of one is unbearable to others.
In sum , it is fairly accepted that " no work , no pay" is the way to go. There is no money for the worthless. One needs to prove his worth and gladly most new companies like Goldman Sachs, Google , Facebook are run by dynamic youth who know how to generate money and write success for themselves, while other companies are still struggling. A lively example could be the expulsion of yesteryear cricket star Saurav Ganguly from Indian cricket team , even though he holds 20 years of experience , fairly to the shock of his durable fans. A company can pay homage and respect to the productive one through this compensation itself. Conversely, for the returns one needs to perform consistently.
Nine-tenths of wisdom is being wise in time ~Theodore Roosevelt
