GMAT Essays (AWA)

"Corporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise. A 'flat' organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees."

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 non-hierarchical or "flat" organizational structures assimilate pay levels and ranks among employees, which has both its benefits and drawbacks. On one hand, such structures may bring important advantages to work environment such as positive team atmosphere, better understanding among colleagues as well as creativity and freedom coming from the fact that there are no superiors. On the other hand the level of control and professionalism in such companies may be put into question. Nevertheless, in the more thorough analysis of this issue I believe that the success of non-hierarchical or "flat" organizational structure depends both on the size and the type of business.

In my opinion, small companies in software engineering industry benefit largely from "loose" organizational structure. The main reason for my view is that there is a pool of small software companies successfully operating on this principle. Those companies are usually outsourcers for larger companies (e.g. Mac, Oracle, Microsoft), and almost all team members are software engineers with more or less same level of experience and knowledge about programming. In such small companies which usually have up to twenty employees, there are no traditional positions like Manager or Director, but instead all employees have positions of Programmers. Given the size and the type of software outsourcers, a business in which it is of crucial importance to deliver a project on time working closely with other team members, I can conclude that decision making is very simple, based on consensus, and that there is no need for more complex hierarchy.

The other reason why I think that "flat" organizational structure is case sensitive is the example of large construction companies in which this approach would not work at all. Such companies have employees whose level of education, experience and skill set largely differ - on one side there are highly educated managers and on the other side there are unskilled seasonal workers. In such companies non-hierarchical organizational structure would be counterproductive, because as an organization grows in size decision making process becomes more important. Also, each position in larger companies has its own level of responsibility, salary grades and fringe benefits packages based on the education and experience. It would be unfair and illogical to provide all employees with the same employment packages given large discrepancies in education and skills set.

In conclusion, I believe that there is no universal organizational structure which could fit all sizes and all types of businesses. While "flat" organizational structure can be beneficial for small businesses with less than twenty employees, it can have serious drawbacks in larger companies.

I'd say this essay is a 4 or 5.

I thought it had a lot of interesting and valid points which supported your argument. However, I found this essay to be difficult to read. The flow isn't clear in the first paragraph, it felt choppy as big vocabulary words seemed to find their way into the sentences where perhaps a smaller word would have sufficed. ("Don't use a 20-dollar word when a 5-dollar word will do." Or something like that.)

@havoc : Is it necessary / mandatory that we have to give three examples to substantiate ur stance and u have to provide real life example supporting ur reasonings?Please let me know....

Generally, you want at least two (2) examples to support your argument. Three (3) is probably ideal to most GMAT takers/graders but I personally prefer two well developed points compared to three that I can't really support all that well. In the end, it depends on how well you write and how well reasoned your argument is.

In terms of getting the score you're looking for, I would say shoot for 2-3 examples.

I believe that this essay is far better than a 4. The minimum rating you could expect for such an essay is a 5, maybe even higher (but that's not very probable).

However, apart from some minor grammatical mistakes, this essay has one BIG problem.

You don't seem to take a side here! Of course your reasoning is valid and of course people can see that you are 100% right in what you describe. However, the GMAT wants you to take sides!

YOU MUST BE FOR OR AGAINST THE STATEMENT!

What you can do, though, is to acknoweldge what critics might respond to your view and then take the wind out of their sails by explaining why your view still holds. Never mention anything that you cannot argue against if that something is NOT your own position! The GMAT will penalize you for this!

My suggestion is you make a list of pros and cons before you start writing. Then, prior to writing the first word, decide whether you are going to write this essay in favor of or against the statement.

Hope this helps.

@jaymw thanks for this review, it is very helpful, I'll certainly follow your advice!

Tijana, you're welcome. I actually did the same essay a while ago and saved it.

You will find it below:

Salaries and corporate ranks both belong to what probably each employee defines him or herself by. Most workers, not only in the US but throughout the world strive for higher ranks and higher salaries. The majority of this group will want higher ranks for a better reputation among coworkers and friends and will want higher salaries to simply have more money available in order to make life a little easier. The author of the given statement claims that there would be a more collegial and cooperative atmosphere in the workplace if the rank and salary system were simplified to fewer classes. He reasons this by assuming that once more workers are in exactly the same rank and receive exactly the same salary, they will also get along better with each other. Personally, I find this statement highly doubtful and I shall explain why in the following.

To me personally, work life is all about climbing up the renowned 'career latter'. I believe that monetary and status incentives can boost employee motivation. I always tended to be more motivated when I was paid more and the prospect of getting paid even more sometimes helped me overcome phases in which I would have otherwise lacked ambition. Consider a career in investment banking for example. In Germany, on average, your starting salary will be about 60.000 Euros plus bonus. However, in almost all banks, if you make it through the probation period you can expect a raise and a new title in the second year. This procedure repeats itself a couple of times in the beginning stages of work life and to my mind constitutes a great deal of possible incentives. After all, would you find it easier to climb a 10 meter high latter that has 10 steps or a latter of the same size that has only 3 steps?

Now, let us look at this issue from a different vantage point. Given you are in your second year of the above-mentioned investment banking career and have just made it through the cumbersome probation period because you always performed well and stayed late when everyone else went home. Now your boss tells you that instead of the raise that you apparently deserve, ranks and salaries of the first two years were to be combined. Instead of, say 80.000 Euros for the second year, you will now only get 70.000 Euros and what's more, all new employees will get 70.000 Euros as well. It goes without saying that you would be upset about this and so will be millions and millions of employees all over the globe who will be ripped off of what they actually deserve. Almost needless to say, this procedure will almost certainly evoke the polar opposite of collegiality and cooperation in the workplace.

Although I could not be a stronger proponent of the preceding explanations, there are some few cases in which I would deem the proposed changes to the general salary and rank system not completely useless. In some non-profit jobs, people might have a less egotistical character than workers in the business world. Therefore, in this line of work, an abolishment of a progressive system might indeed strengthen the relationships between coworkers, because workers are more likely to be less ambitious salary and rank-wise but therefore more insistent on harmony.

In sum, I strongly reject the author's claim and believe the opposite to be true. As explained by the given examples, a progressive rank and salary system manages to provide employees in the business world with valuable incentives without which they might otherwise find it tough to be motivated. The aspect of dreaming of a better future along with a person's ability to make this dream come true by means of hard work is definitely of the utmost importance.


Should you have any question, just let me know!