-
nidhi.mba14
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:41 pm
The following appeared in a memorandum from the human resources department of Diversified Manufacturing:
"Managers at our central office report that their employees tend to be most productive in the days immediately preceding a vacation. To help counteract our declining market share, we could increase the productivity of our professional staff members, who currently receive four weeks paid vacation a year, by limiting them to a maximum of one week's continuous vacation time. They will thus take more vacation breaks during a year and give us more days of maximum productivity."
The argument above is given by the human resource department in a memorandum. The memorandum states that it has been reported by the managers that their employees tend to be most productive immediately preceding the vacation. Hence in order to counteract the declining market share and increase productivity of the staff members the human resource department suggests the decrease in the four weeks paid vacation to one week paid vacation. They support their viewpoint by stating that since their is a decrease in the planned vacation hence the staff member would take more vacation break during a year and hence the company would be profited with more productive days. The Human Resource department here assumes two basic things: Firstly a direct correlation of the Productivity with the Employee Vacation and secondly, the decrease in paid leave from 4 week to 1 week for sure to increase the employee productivity. These assumption suffers from basic flaw in reasoning which can be described in detail in following paragraphs:
Firstly, the Human resource department tries to portray a direct relationship between Employee productivity and the Vacations that a employee is entitled to take. If we look at this scenario and go by the words of the Human resource department, then if employee productivity is related to vacations then of course decrease in vacation plan might have a negative impact on the employee productivity as well. The employee might not be very motivated to work and thus the company may see an overall decrease in the productivity.
Secondly, the Human Resource department has just given a suggestion on the basic of the managers observation. But nowhere this observation is supported by any fact or figures. Moreover The managers who have reported this issue may be a small sample set compared to the whole company. Thus the department fails to justify its standpoint in absence of any facts and figures.
Next, for any employee when they go for any planned vacation then they generally tend to wrap up their work as much as possible, which may be observed by these managers as increase in productivity, Now if these same employees are entitled for only one week of paid leave and even if they are allowed for more no of leaves during a year then they may not work as heavily as they would have if they would have gone for vacation. Unlike the Staff member, who go for long vacations,trying to finish as much as their work, these staff members, who go for short vacations may not work as hard. They may have in mind that they are taking a leave for a day or two and hence may not be burdened to complete the task.
Thus in conclusion , it can be suggested that the arguments put forward by the human resource department is weakly reasoned. The Department has ignored top look at the other side of the scenario as decrease in employee moral because of cut down in planned vacation, less enthusiasm among workers to finish their work when they go for short vacations compared to enthusiasm when they go for long vacations, etc. In absence of consideration of these points the Departements suggestion is weakly structured.
"Managers at our central office report that their employees tend to be most productive in the days immediately preceding a vacation. To help counteract our declining market share, we could increase the productivity of our professional staff members, who currently receive four weeks paid vacation a year, by limiting them to a maximum of one week's continuous vacation time. They will thus take more vacation breaks during a year and give us more days of maximum productivity."
The argument above is given by the human resource department in a memorandum. The memorandum states that it has been reported by the managers that their employees tend to be most productive immediately preceding the vacation. Hence in order to counteract the declining market share and increase productivity of the staff members the human resource department suggests the decrease in the four weeks paid vacation to one week paid vacation. They support their viewpoint by stating that since their is a decrease in the planned vacation hence the staff member would take more vacation break during a year and hence the company would be profited with more productive days. The Human Resource department here assumes two basic things: Firstly a direct correlation of the Productivity with the Employee Vacation and secondly, the decrease in paid leave from 4 week to 1 week for sure to increase the employee productivity. These assumption suffers from basic flaw in reasoning which can be described in detail in following paragraphs:
Firstly, the Human resource department tries to portray a direct relationship between Employee productivity and the Vacations that a employee is entitled to take. If we look at this scenario and go by the words of the Human resource department, then if employee productivity is related to vacations then of course decrease in vacation plan might have a negative impact on the employee productivity as well. The employee might not be very motivated to work and thus the company may see an overall decrease in the productivity.
Secondly, the Human Resource department has just given a suggestion on the basic of the managers observation. But nowhere this observation is supported by any fact or figures. Moreover The managers who have reported this issue may be a small sample set compared to the whole company. Thus the department fails to justify its standpoint in absence of any facts and figures.
Next, for any employee when they go for any planned vacation then they generally tend to wrap up their work as much as possible, which may be observed by these managers as increase in productivity, Now if these same employees are entitled for only one week of paid leave and even if they are allowed for more no of leaves during a year then they may not work as heavily as they would have if they would have gone for vacation. Unlike the Staff member, who go for long vacations,trying to finish as much as their work, these staff members, who go for short vacations may not work as hard. They may have in mind that they are taking a leave for a day or two and hence may not be burdened to complete the task.
Thus in conclusion , it can be suggested that the arguments put forward by the human resource department is weakly reasoned. The Department has ignored top look at the other side of the scenario as decrease in employee moral because of cut down in planned vacation, less enthusiasm among workers to finish their work when they go for short vacations compared to enthusiasm when they go for long vacations, etc. In absence of consideration of these points the Departements suggestion is weakly structured.
