“Businesses are as likely as are governments to establish large bureaucracies, but bureaucracy is far more damaging to a business than it is to a government.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.“
Above statement is saying that unrequired inefficiencies and things like "red tapism" have more chances of occurring in businesses than in governments. Statement also adds that these bureaucracies are more detrimental to businesses as compared to governments. I would rather say that inefficiencies have fewer opportunities to creep in businesses. Businesses are under lots of constraints and they are required to ensure that they are operating in the most efficient manner.
Firstly, in today's competitive world, businesses are under constant pressure from competitors and investors. Businesses cannot afford to have bureaucracies as bureaucracies could affect overall output and profit. Bureaucracies affect efficiencies of employees and time required to get the work done. For instance, a government could take long time to meet immediate needs of their customers (citizens of the country). But businesses cannot afford to have such type of delay in meeting customer needs. Chances are that customers of a business would go to competitors if they didn't like service given by their company. Just for example if one cellular service provider(Cingular) doesn't provide good service to its customers then chances are that those customers would go to other cellular service providers (Sprint, T-Mobile or Verizon etc.).
To prove my point I would like to provide example of city maintain by a private industry in India. In India overall quality of basic facilities such as water, road and electricity which are provided by government is not that good. But one city, “Jamshedpur", is maintained by private company "Tata". Tata provides excellent basic facilities. Even in case of complaints, customer service is rated number one. In fact, "Jamshedpur" is only one city in India which is valued for its overall quality throughout the world. Analysts assign the success of "Jamshedpur" to the fact that the city has been maintained by private hands than any government. It is important for private owner to maintain its business and the private business cannot afford to loose its customers by inefficiencies which creep in because of bureaucracy.
In short, I think that chances of bureaucracy creeping in businesses are less. But governments need to ensure that they are putting efforts to eliminate bureaucracy and are providing best service to people.
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.“
Above statement is saying that unrequired inefficiencies and things like "red tapism" have more chances of occurring in businesses than in governments. Statement also adds that these bureaucracies are more detrimental to businesses as compared to governments. I would rather say that inefficiencies have fewer opportunities to creep in businesses. Businesses are under lots of constraints and they are required to ensure that they are operating in the most efficient manner.
Firstly, in today's competitive world, businesses are under constant pressure from competitors and investors. Businesses cannot afford to have bureaucracies as bureaucracies could affect overall output and profit. Bureaucracies affect efficiencies of employees and time required to get the work done. For instance, a government could take long time to meet immediate needs of their customers (citizens of the country). But businesses cannot afford to have such type of delay in meeting customer needs. Chances are that customers of a business would go to competitors if they didn't like service given by their company. Just for example if one cellular service provider(Cingular) doesn't provide good service to its customers then chances are that those customers would go to other cellular service providers (Sprint, T-Mobile or Verizon etc.).
To prove my point I would like to provide example of city maintain by a private industry in India. In India overall quality of basic facilities such as water, road and electricity which are provided by government is not that good. But one city, “Jamshedpur", is maintained by private company "Tata". Tata provides excellent basic facilities. Even in case of complaints, customer service is rated number one. In fact, "Jamshedpur" is only one city in India which is valued for its overall quality throughout the world. Analysts assign the success of "Jamshedpur" to the fact that the city has been maintained by private hands than any government. It is important for private owner to maintain its business and the private business cannot afford to loose its customers by inefficiencies which creep in because of bureaucracy.
In short, I think that chances of bureaucracy creeping in businesses are less. But governments need to ensure that they are putting efforts to eliminate bureaucracy and are providing best service to people.
