Hi
Please have a look at my AWA section.
Issue:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Job security and salary should be based on employee performance, not on years of service. Rewarding
employees primarily for years of service discourages people from maintaining consistently high levels of
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree with the opinion that job security and salary should solely be a function of an employee's performance.However,some argue that loyalty to an organization and experience should be acknowledged while deciding the salary.But I firmly believe that the company does not benefit with experienced employees until unless the experience of the employees culminates in better performance.
The chief reason for my view is that making experience of an employeee as a factor in determing salary increases complacency in the organization. It kills the stimulating enviornment of the organization. Employees become contended in such a scenario with their day to day activity and thier once acquired skills wane. For insatnce, case study by Mckinsey noted that about 60% companies those link experience to salary end up being filled with employees with diminishing skills.And this was the reason, pointed out by Mckinsey, why many companies provided training to most employees more than once for the same set of skills.Thus, it is important to delink experience and salary and totally focus on performance based salary if the skill set
Secondly, performance based salary drives employees to achieve new skills sets on their own and to work harder. For instance, in RIL, many production managers acquired degrees from open universities like IGNOU to increase thier skills so as to achieve a higher pay. Performance based salary and job security creates competitive environment within organization where each employee tries to do more. Infact, RIL setuped the biggest refinery of the world in less than 6 months(shortest time taken to setup a refinery) because it had promised to increase the pay of all the employees provided they achieve this feat within 6 months. This led to employees working overtime to finish the project. Thus, these examples clearly demonstrate how much the company profits by making performance as an incentive to a better salary.
However, some argue that loyalty to an organization and services should be taken into account while deciding the salary. But loyalty and number of years of service does not actually create more value for an organization. The experience must transform itself into increased competency and skills.If it does then performance of the employee will also improve and hence his/her salary. Objective should be pertinent experience rather than an experience which does not help the company.
To sum up, performance should be the only criteria for a salary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARGUMENT
-------------------------
The following is an excerpt from a memo written by the head of a governmental department:
"Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical
behavior by companies doing business with this department. We already have a code of ethics that companies
doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to
follow it. We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved
within the last year, and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were
then working-not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes are."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasoning of the argument is hazy and unclear. The argument justifies its ethical code citing that all companies have agreed to follow it. But this does not mean that the behaviour is ethical.Moreover, the argument assumes the relevance of the code based on last years violations. This is a farfetched assumption since the violations need not necessarily be on the recent grounds prevalent in current business scenarios. Lack of pertinent evidence, unmentioned assumption and absence of lucid reasoning makes this argument unconvincing.
Most importantly, the argument's reasoning relies on unreliable evidence. Code of ethics is justified only on the basis that all companies have agreed to follow it. This does not rule out the situation in which the code is less strict and hence favourable to all the companies.All the companies would agree to the code in such a scenario as well. In making such a justification the argument assumes that the present code is one of the strictest codes. Had this been the case then the fact that all companies agree to the code might have made sense. But the argument never establishes that the present is strict.
Secondly, the argument makes a vague unmentioned assumption that last year violations were reflective of the latest trend of violations. It is on this basis that the argument conludes that its code is relevant to the current business enviornment. However, it is plausible that the last years violations were on the criterias which were established much later. Moreover, if the code is not improved one will not be able to register the new trend of violations. This makes the argument convoluted.
However, the argument can be made more persuasuive and simple. More evidence should be provided to buttress the relevance of the present evidence. Evidence which proves the fact that the present codes are strict will help make the point more strongly. Further, reasoning of the argument can be improved by saying that the code is relevant more because no new types of violations are envisaged rather than by just saying no new types of violations occured.
To sum up, the present argument is unconvincing and weak. But it can be strengthened provided it makes the changes as endorsed above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for suggestions to improve.
Please have a look at my AWA section.
Issue:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Job security and salary should be based on employee performance, not on years of service. Rewarding
employees primarily for years of service discourages people from maintaining consistently high levels of
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree with the opinion that job security and salary should solely be a function of an employee's performance.However,some argue that loyalty to an organization and experience should be acknowledged while deciding the salary.But I firmly believe that the company does not benefit with experienced employees until unless the experience of the employees culminates in better performance.
The chief reason for my view is that making experience of an employeee as a factor in determing salary increases complacency in the organization. It kills the stimulating enviornment of the organization. Employees become contended in such a scenario with their day to day activity and thier once acquired skills wane. For insatnce, case study by Mckinsey noted that about 60% companies those link experience to salary end up being filled with employees with diminishing skills.And this was the reason, pointed out by Mckinsey, why many companies provided training to most employees more than once for the same set of skills.Thus, it is important to delink experience and salary and totally focus on performance based salary if the skill set
Secondly, performance based salary drives employees to achieve new skills sets on their own and to work harder. For instance, in RIL, many production managers acquired degrees from open universities like IGNOU to increase thier skills so as to achieve a higher pay. Performance based salary and job security creates competitive environment within organization where each employee tries to do more. Infact, RIL setuped the biggest refinery of the world in less than 6 months(shortest time taken to setup a refinery) because it had promised to increase the pay of all the employees provided they achieve this feat within 6 months. This led to employees working overtime to finish the project. Thus, these examples clearly demonstrate how much the company profits by making performance as an incentive to a better salary.
However, some argue that loyalty to an organization and services should be taken into account while deciding the salary. But loyalty and number of years of service does not actually create more value for an organization. The experience must transform itself into increased competency and skills.If it does then performance of the employee will also improve and hence his/her salary. Objective should be pertinent experience rather than an experience which does not help the company.
To sum up, performance should be the only criteria for a salary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARGUMENT
-------------------------
The following is an excerpt from a memo written by the head of a governmental department:
"Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical
behavior by companies doing business with this department. We already have a code of ethics that companies
doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to
follow it. We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved
within the last year, and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were
then working-not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes are."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasoning of the argument is hazy and unclear. The argument justifies its ethical code citing that all companies have agreed to follow it. But this does not mean that the behaviour is ethical.Moreover, the argument assumes the relevance of the code based on last years violations. This is a farfetched assumption since the violations need not necessarily be on the recent grounds prevalent in current business scenarios. Lack of pertinent evidence, unmentioned assumption and absence of lucid reasoning makes this argument unconvincing.
Most importantly, the argument's reasoning relies on unreliable evidence. Code of ethics is justified only on the basis that all companies have agreed to follow it. This does not rule out the situation in which the code is less strict and hence favourable to all the companies.All the companies would agree to the code in such a scenario as well. In making such a justification the argument assumes that the present code is one of the strictest codes. Had this been the case then the fact that all companies agree to the code might have made sense. But the argument never establishes that the present is strict.
Secondly, the argument makes a vague unmentioned assumption that last year violations were reflective of the latest trend of violations. It is on this basis that the argument conludes that its code is relevant to the current business enviornment. However, it is plausible that the last years violations were on the criterias which were established much later. Moreover, if the code is not improved one will not be able to register the new trend of violations. This makes the argument convoluted.
However, the argument can be made more persuasuive and simple. More evidence should be provided to buttress the relevance of the present evidence. Evidence which proves the fact that the present codes are strict will help make the point more strongly. Further, reasoning of the argument can be improved by saying that the code is relevant more because no new types of violations are envisaged rather than by just saying no new types of violations occured.
To sum up, the present argument is unconvincing and weak. But it can be strengthened provided it makes the changes as endorsed above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for suggestions to improve.
