-
ymohiuddin
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:05 pm
- Location: Nova Scotia
Hi all. I've just attempted my second AoI essay and I'm not sure how I did. Andrea was kind enough to assess the first one I wrote, with the main criticism being that there was no order to my argument. This time around I attempted to open with my strongest point and include a solid thesis statement in my first para. My mind went blank when attempting to come up with a third point so it might be a tad short. I'd be grateful for any comments. Thanks!
"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.
Many companies and governments follow a system that rewards employees based solely on the number of years they have been employed with that particular organization. However, promotion based on seniority provides a disincentive for employees of any firm. When promotion is guaranteed, workers are less inclined to prove themselves through producing superior quality output. This is why job promotion should be based on merit rather than the quantity of time spent with one employer.
One primary reason for this view is illustrated clearly by the overarching bureaucracies of countries such as India and France. These nations have become notorious as places where civil servants who have long outlasted their usefulness continue to climb the ranks with their sights set on gaining a full pension at retirement. They are never fired, because doing so would go against custom; instead, they occupy high-ranking positions without deserving it. In a true meritocracy, these bureaucrats would have been fired long ago and replaced with people who had shown they were capable of handling such responsibilities.
Secondly, enforcing a reward system based on merit rather than seniority will encourage people to work harder toward achieving a higher rank. If employees continuously work toward certain goals, the result is increased productivity, which benefits everyone. A goal-oriented department is much more likely to exceed sales targets or meet deadlines than one in which laziness has no consequences.
In sum, several factors affect an employee's chances of receiving a promotion and concurrent pay hike, but the most important of these should be merit, not seniority based on an ingrained culture of entitlement and indolence. The outcome of a system that values quality over seniority is a productive and driven workforce, which benefits society and the company.
"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.
Many companies and governments follow a system that rewards employees based solely on the number of years they have been employed with that particular organization. However, promotion based on seniority provides a disincentive for employees of any firm. When promotion is guaranteed, workers are less inclined to prove themselves through producing superior quality output. This is why job promotion should be based on merit rather than the quantity of time spent with one employer.
One primary reason for this view is illustrated clearly by the overarching bureaucracies of countries such as India and France. These nations have become notorious as places where civil servants who have long outlasted their usefulness continue to climb the ranks with their sights set on gaining a full pension at retirement. They are never fired, because doing so would go against custom; instead, they occupy high-ranking positions without deserving it. In a true meritocracy, these bureaucrats would have been fired long ago and replaced with people who had shown they were capable of handling such responsibilities.
Secondly, enforcing a reward system based on merit rather than seniority will encourage people to work harder toward achieving a higher rank. If employees continuously work toward certain goals, the result is increased productivity, which benefits everyone. A goal-oriented department is much more likely to exceed sales targets or meet deadlines than one in which laziness has no consequences.
In sum, several factors affect an employee's chances of receiving a promotion and concurrent pay hike, but the most important of these should be merit, not seniority based on an ingrained culture of entitlement and indolence. The outcome of a system that values quality over seniority is a productive and driven workforce, which benefits society and the company.
