Capability and Management

"The best strategy for managing a business, or any enterprise, is to find the most capable people and give them as much authority as possible."

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.

Perhaps, it may seem advisable that one should give the most capable person the maximum amount of authority. After all, merit should decide reward. I would have agreed if it was only about the reward and not management. 

My opinion is that management needs more than just being capable in some discipline. Although it is true that the best way of getting a thing done is to give it to the most capable person, it is also true that management skills and capability are not directly related. For example, a company may have a very capable programmer, but that does not make him the ideal candidate to manage the engineering division. Even if a person is the best talent on board, it is not necessary that the person will be a good manager. 

Capability may be one of the key requirements to become a manager, but it is certainly not the only one. In fact, a manager's leadership qualities, communication skills, the ability to network and vision are equally, if not more, important.

A good example that demonstrated this point is the famous technical company, Google. The company has been founded by technical people and lives on technology. Nevertheless, it demands more than technical capability from its managers. The focus is more on a broad-based personality than on capability in any one single discipline.

Another thing that needs to be taken care of is interest. Even if a person is deemed capable and has a broad-based personality, it is not necessary that the person will be interested in management. Forcing more authority on an unwilling employee can have disastrous results, to say the least. The company may even end up loosing a capable resource who would have been much better being left to do what he does best. 

Concluding, a capable person is a valuable resource for the company. Many time people with capability in a discipline want to focus on their own area and are not concerned with the management (as long as it does not interfere too much in their work!). On the other hand, some of them may be actually interested in management and may be actually good at it too. Nevertheless, to assume that every capable person will be interested in management and will be successful at it is faulty at best. 

Improving Customer Service

The following appeared in a memo from the customer service division to the manager of Mammon Savings and Loan:

"We believe that improved customer service is the best way for us to differentiate ourselves from competitors and attract new customers. We can offer our customers better service by reducing waiting time in teller lines from an average of six minutes to an average of three. By opening for business at 8:30 instead of 9:00, and by remaining open for an additional hour beyond our current closing time, we will be better able to accommodate the busy schedules of our customers. These changes will enhance our bank’s image as the most customer-friendly bank in town and give us the edge over our competition."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The customer service division asserts in this memo that improving customer service is the best way for Mammon Savings and Loan to differentiate themselves from competitors and attract new customers. It further mentions possible ways to achieve the same. The presented argument is not without merit. Nevertheless, the argument has many loopholes that need to be plugged in order to make it more convincing.

Improving customer service can be one of the ways to achieve the mentioned goals. That does not, however, make it the best way. The argument fails to address that on what basis improving customer service can be said to be the best way. If it is about attracting customers and differentiating the company from competition, it can also be done by offering better interest rates, well-planned marketing campaigns and providing a wider range of savings and loan options. Besides customer service, a company's brand positioning, marketing communication and product portfolio play an equally important role in helping the company to differentiate itself from competition and attract new customers. An informed decision can be taken only after evaluating all these options. Hence, the argument must categorically state why it thinks that an improved customer service is the best way when compared to other options available to the company.

One of the suggested way is reducing waiting time in teller lines. This effort, however, mandates that the organization increase its daily working hours by one-and-a-half hour. Although such an effort may actually produce the desired results, it will also put extra strain on the existing resources. Such a change is likely to affect the employees work-home balance and would mean more money being paid out to the employees. In terms of the benefits that it would yield, it is not clear if such an effort may be actually worth it or not. May be, the organization would be better off promoting secure e-banking and phone banking for its customers using the same money. It would not only help the organization to accommodate its customer's busy schedules, it would also cost less. The HSBC bank is a good example of an organization that has been doing exactly that to improve customer service at minimal cost.

Concluding, the argument fails to take into consideration alternate ways to achieve the same goals and the possible effect of the suggested changes on the resources and employees. Hence it fails to clearly establish why the suggested way would be the best way to differentiate the company from competition and attract new customers. The argument can be made stronger if it evaluates alternate ways and clearly shows how the suggested course of action is superior to any other way. Failing that, the argument would appear weak and flawed.

Change Catalyst: Business or Government?

"A powerful business leader has far more opportunity to influence the course of a community or a nation than does any government official."

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.

Who has more opportunity to influence the course of a community or a nation? Is it a business leader or is it a government official? I feel government officials have more opportunity to bring about change. Although it is true that business leaders are the wheels that carry an economy forward, it is also true that the government officials provide the road and the fuel for these wheels to run.

Changes at a macro level cannot occur easily without the will and support of the rulers of a country and the officials that implement those changes. No matter how good a business person is, he or she cannot overcome an unsupportive government hell-bent on destroying business. Neither can he be that effective in a country where there are no strict regulations, no protection for intellectual property and institutionalized corruption at every level. 

This can be easily seen in today's world. Singapore has an army of very efficient government officers backed by a pro-active Government. This has helped the country remain prosperous and business friendly despite its small size and lack of natural resources. On the other hand a resource-rich county like Iran finds it difficult to distribute prosperity to people due to inefficiency of the government officials and the rulers. In China it would be far easier for a Government officer to affect a change than an business leader. 

Historically, great changes can be traced to wise leaders who lead government officials. If Abraham Lincoln helped USA to survive civil war and Margaret Thatcher helped UK to open up its economy, it was no achieved single-handedly. The greatest changes have come from leaders and their retinue of officials, not from business leaders. Business leaders can be credited with incremental improvements in the people's lives, industrial innovations and wealth creation. The driving force for change, however, has always been the government and its officials. 

One may argue about the inefficiency and bureaucracy characteristic to the governments round the globe. Nevertheless, if the Government officials don't work in a country; the chances that any change will work are less. Conversely, if they work, the changes can be all-encompassing and powerful. With a power to implement changes that affect many lives and the backed by the huge resources of the Government, a Government official can be a much more powerful instrument of change than most business leader can ever hope to be. At the end of the day, the chief concern of a business leader is to create value for share-holders and not oversee changes in society. It is a simple separation of concerns.

Funding School

The following appeared in a speech delivered by a member of the city council:

"Twenty years ago, only half of the students who graduated from Einstein High School went on to attend a college or university. Today, two-thirds of the students who graduate from Einstein do so. Clearly, Einstein has improved its educational effectiveness over the past two decades. This improvement has occurred despite the fact that the school’s funding, when adjusted for inflation, is about the same as it was 20 years ago. Therefore, we do not need to make any substantial increase in the school’s funding at this time."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The city council member argues that Einstein High School does not need any substantial increase in its funding as the schools educational effectiveness has increased over the past two decades. To support his reasoning, the member presents the increase in the proportion of students who graduated from the school and went on to attend a college or university as evidence. The reasoning is flawed and appears insufficient on several counts.

The primary evidence presented may not be a good indicator of the school's effectiveness due to several reasons. Firstly, proportions in themselves do not mean an increase in numbers. It is possible that the number of people attending the school has actually fallen over the years which in turn has led to an increase in the proportion of students who go on to attend a college or a university. Secondly, the statistics has no point of reference to compare with. The school's effectiveness can be better judged if we can compare it with statistics of other schools in the region. Without these two pieces of information, the primary evidence itself is circumspect.

Even if we assume that the number did increase and the school did reasonably well when compared to other schools, it is very much possible that the improvement may not be due to school's efforts. It is possible that the improvement may have been the result of an increased social awareness about benefits of higher education and individual efforts of the students. If this is true, it would put into question any claimed improvement in the school's educational effectiveness. 

Finally, even if school's efforts have led to improvements, the process itself can be arguably made faster with more funding. The goal should be to have most of the students go for higher education rather than only two-third. The argument is also totally quite about the state of infrastructure and school facilities. More funding would also mean more resources and general improvement in the school's infrastructure and facilities.

Concluding, the presented argument is insufficient and potentially flawed. It can be, however, made stronger if the council member states clearly that there has been an increase in the number of students going for higher education and that the improvement is comparable to other schools in the region. He must also come clean whether the improvement was due to the school's effort or due to a general increase in social awareness about benefits of higher education. Finally, the funds not only improve effectiveness, they also improve infrastructure and school facilities. They can also help to speed up the process of increasing effectiveness. So, unless the school has been able to improve them too over time, it definitely needs funds.

School Responsibility: Academics or Ethics?

"Schools should be responsible only for teaching academic skills and not for teaching ethical and social values."

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.

Should schools take responsible for teaching ethical and social values or should they focus only on teaching academic skills? It is an interesting question to which there is no easy answer. On one hand, one may assume it to be natural for schools to teach ethical and social values as they are responsible for a holistic growth of the student. On the other hand, who is to prevent schools from becoming a tools in the hand of the Government hell-bent on pushing through its propaganda on young, impressionable minds?

One thing I can say for sure is that ethics and education go hand in hand. A good example is the examination for a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) who has to give an exam in ethics besides the regular financial subjects. If the student fails in ethics, he fails the entire exam: no matter how good his financial knowledge is. In fact, most of the industries have a code of ethics. If a student aspires to gain knowledge about a subject, he may as well be well versed with the ethics of the industry he targets so as he becomes a responsible corporate citizen.

However, when one talks about social values, there is no easy answer. In an increasingly multi-cultural society it is becoming more and more difficult to arrive at a common set of acceptable ideals. Nevertheless, it is important for schools to teach the basic social values that bind the country. For example, if US citizens take pride in their flag and their country, a great deal of credit goes to the grass-root education that inspires patriotism. As long as it is not a tool for propaganda but an honest effort to educate children about their society and imbibe values of tolerance and patriotism, it will serve its purpose. 

Finally, a student spends a lot of time of his formative years in his school. So logically it is the place that can have the most powerful effect in shaping his personality (catch them young as they say!) after his immediate family. Hence, a school needs to take the responsibility to not only educate the pupil about the world but also about how to live in this world. This is not possible without teaching social and ethical values. This would not only help in the holistic growth of the students but will also contribute to making a better world.

Concluding, I do not agree that schools should limit themselves to teaching academic skills only. In fact they bear the huge responsibility of making their students better human beings by teaching them about ethics and social values. 

Controlling Drug Abuse

The following appeared in the editorial section of a newspaper:

"As public concern over drug abuse has increased, authorities have become more vigilant in their efforts to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country. Many drug traffickers have consequently switched from marijuana, which is bulky, or heroin, which has a market too small to justify the risk of severe punishment, to cocaine. Thus enforcement efforts have ironically resulted in an observed increase in the illegal use of cocaine."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The reasoning effectively blames efforts to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country for the increase in the illegal use of cocaine. The observation is flawed on some counts.

Even though it is mentioned that the number of cocaine users has increased, the number of total drug addicts is not discussed. It is very much possible that the number of drug addicts consuming other drugs has come down due to fear of authorities. In the depleted pool the number of cocaine drug addicts may dominate as they are still able to get cocaine. On the other hand, if the number of total addicts has not fallen and they have simply switched to cocaine, then this argument is justified to some extent.

Moreover, the effort to control a disease can sometimes make the disease stronger. But blaming the effort for the transmutation is not accurate. The effort to prevent illegal drugs from entering the country may also have been responsible for bringing drug lords to justice, making it harder for drug cartels to operate and reducing the number of drug addicts. Citing only one statistic to disparage the efforts does not sound convincing.

Finally, there can be an alternative reason to explains the increase. It is possible that for some reason the cocaine has become cheaper to buy. Or that even though the drugs are prevented from entering the country, if they manage to enter then the local law enforcement agencies do not take it seriously. In that case the reason may lie due to an external market force or some other agency. If the argument explores alternate reasons and shows that they are not responsible for the increase in cocaine users, the reasoning can become stronger.

Concluding, the reasoning attributes increase in the number of cocaine users to the efforts of authorities to prevent drug-trafficking. The reasoning conveniently forgets to mention the actual numbers and does not compare them to the number of illegal drug users in the previous years. It also fails to highlight if there were any positive effects that the efforts may have had in terms of busting drug cartels and bringing drug mafia to justice. Neither does it try to show that cocaine usage did not increase due to any other reason except the one mentioned. Without additional information, it seems that the reasoning seeks to disparage the efforts of the authorities. Nevertheless if it categorically mentions concrete numbers, shows that cocaine usage did not increase due to any other reason and states as a fact that the control efforts did not help in any way, the reasoning can be made stronger.

Supporting Arts Unconditionally

"Clearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced."

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Develop your position by giving specific reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The Government is often held responsible for everything. Why should arts be any different, one may wonder? Arts represent the softer and creative side of human existence and the cultural wealth of a country. Surely, promoting arts is important. However, holding the Government solely responsible for its development may not be the best thing to do. I also differ on the point of giving an unconditional support to the cause as it may literally translate into perks without any accountability.

Government is responsible for the well-being and progress of its people. Its duties include defence, law and order, infrastructure, foreign policy, economics, culture etc. It is an organization with immense resources and influence. One may think that without its patronage arts may find it difficult to prosper. The renaissance period saw a number of guilds that were owned by master artists and not the Government. Their main patrons were wealthy individuals, kings and the Church. Today an artist is more likely to be hired by a Government organizing Olympics, a corporate making a new headquarter or some NGO commissioning a great work to commemorate 200 years of Darwin. So, clearly, even though the Government is a big player, it is certainly not the most dominant or the most critical. Hence, the responsibility to promote arts lies not only with the Government but with the entire society.

Another point is that there are no free-lunches in the world. If the government promotes arts, it may expect something in return. This may be something as basic as seeing some tangible progress, works of art or some awards. If government's investment is not yielding any dividends, the government may as well call it quits. Even though the government may respect an artists freedom of expression, it certainly has the right to expect some results in lieu of its support.

Concluding, I agree that the government has a responsibility to support the arts. Nevertheless, it is not just the government but the whole length and breadth of the society that bears responsibility to support art. In order to get the best results the government does need to give the artists freedom of expression. However, the government does have the right to put in restrictions in form of demanding concrete results and tangible success to justify the support.

Railway or Highway?

The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter:

"While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The argument reasons that the Government should lower the property taxes levied on railroad companies. To justify the argument the writers compares railroad companies with trucking companies. He also presents other arguments about railways being cost-effective and environment-friendly when compared to trucking companies. I think the argument is flawed on several counts.

Firstly, the trucking companies pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use as they neither own nor use the highways exclusively. On the other hand, the rail companies completely own their facilities and use it exclusively. Hence the comparison is ill-founded. If the rail companies are willing to give the land owned to the Government and share it with other railroad companies, only then the argument can have any weight.

Secondly, railway transportation cannot be said to be a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping in every case. Even though rail transport may be more environment friendly and cheap, it does not have a coverage as wide as the highways. In fact, highways can deliver goods to the most remote of areas where the trains cannot due to absence of railroads.

Lastly, even though the rail lines exist, they still need maintenance and upgrade. In fact with more rail traffic the rail lines would need more maintenance and monitoring. There is also a limit to which one can increase traffic without laying down new rail lines. This means that the cost advantage resulting from promoting rail traffic may be minimal. 

Concluding, the presented argument is not very strong. It compares rail transport with highway transport which is not a very convincing comparison due to different modes of operation and the fact that the trucking companies do not own the highways but the railways owns their facilities. The argument highlights the strengths of trains (cost-effective and environment friendly) but fails to address their weakness (less coverage). It also fails to take into account the maintenance that railroads may need due to an increased traffic volume when arguing about costs. Only if these questions are addressed, only then the reasoning can become stronger and convincing.

Merit or Loyalty?

"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.

Job loyalty can be an important asset for any company. The costs involved in hiring and training new employees can add up for big companies. Nevertheless, is it fair to reward employees only on the basis of years that they have spent with the company? What is the right thing to do?

I feel it is more important for a company to reward merit than loyalty. Rewarding people on the basis of years of service sounds egalitarian, but in real world is almost always counter-productive.

The most pertinent example that comes to my mind is that of government bureaucrats in most of the countries. In many countries in Asia (India) and Europe (UK), the job security and salaries of bureaucrats are essentially linked to years of service. This amounts to total lack of accountability which further transforms to no work and even corruption. If their future was linked to their performance, it would have discouraged such a behavior. 

Another example that I can think of is the information technology (IT) industry. Everyday there are changes in the technology: new programming paradigms, equipments, software and programming languages keep finding their way into the market. Number of years of service are not enough to judge the usefulness of any employee. Unless and until an employee is pro-active, he will not be able to keep pace with the changing environment. What is true for IT is equally true for any technical knowledge based industry.

An employee who does not contribute to the growth of the company is like a parasite living on the company. A company can take responsibility to train, help and educate. Nothing, however, can be achieved without the will of an individual. Promoting number of years instead of performance is a sure-shot way to promote mediocrity and alienate the talented. Any company that does that cannot hope to excel for long.

Concluding, I completely agree with the presented point of view. Merit and merit alone should be the sole basis of promoting anybody in an organization. If talent is not nurtured, it will either go elsewhere or die out. In order to maintain a high level of productivity, it is important to challenge people and let them know that their hard work will be rewarded. 

Charity or Profit?

The following appeared in a memorandum from the head of a human resources department at a major automobile

manufacturing company to the company's managers:

"Studies have found that employees of not-for-profit organizations and charities are often more highly motivated than employees of for-profit corporations to perform well at work when their performance is not being monitored or evaluated. Interviews with employees of not-for-profit organizations suggest that the reason for their greater motivation is the belief that their work helps to improve society. Because they believe in the importance of their work, they have personal reasons to perform well, even when no financial reward is present. Thus, if our corporation began donating a significant portion of its profits to humanitarian causes, our employees’ motivation and productivity would increase substantially and our overall profits would increase as well."

Discuss how well reasoned . . .etc.

The presented argument asserts that if the company in question starts donating a significant part of its profits to humanitarian causes, it would substantially increase the productivity and motivation of the employees. To support this conclusion the argument presents a study about the employees of not-for-profit organizations and charities. The argument is flawed on several counts.

Firstly, the employees of charities and not-for-profit organizations are self-motivated. The reason that they are working for such organization is that they want to contribute to the society. On the other hand people working in for-profit organizations may not be motivated by the same thing. If they were, they would have been working for some charity. Hence the reasoning that the employees of a for-profit organization will be motivated by the company's contribution to humanitarian causes is faulty at best. It can be justified only if the argument also mentions that the employees of the current company also feel the same way.

Secondly, the argument assumes that there is no better way to motivate the employees. Employees can also be motivated by a good work environment, bigger salaries and quality work. The productivity can also be increased by streamlining processes, providing employees better tools and having flexible timings. Even though contributing to a noble cause is a good thing, the company may be better off focusing on alternate strategies if the final aim is to motivate people. There is nothing concrete to compare the results against. If the argument presents some alternative ways and shows the current way to be much superior in terms of cost and effectiveness, one may accept the argument.

Lastly, the reason to commit a significant portion of profits is unclear. Any company,  for-profit or not-for-profit, is accountable to its shareholders. Any action directly affecting profits needs to be justified by quantifiable metrics. Hence the argument would gain weight if it presents the expected return on investment as a result of implementing the stated policy and the basis of such a prediction.

Concluding, the argument on its own is weak and not convincing. Nevertheless if the writer supplies additional information, the argument can become reasonably strong. Since the motivating factors for people working in profit and not-for-profit may not be same, the need for additional information is especially strong.

Machines: Helping or Enslaving?

"In this age of automation, many people complain that humans are becoming subservient to machines. But, in fact, machines are continually improving our lives."

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.

Machines improve our lives by making things easier for us. In fact, machines have come to represent the human civilization's scientific prowess. Nevertheless, human beings are increasingly getting dependent on machines for most basic of tasks. When children fail to learn basic arithmetic due to presence of calculators, you know that there is something seriously wrong. Then what is the role that machines play in our lives: a facilitator or an enslaver?

I think that machines are a positive influence in our lives. The same sword that protects also kills. Then, is the sword good or is it bad? It really depends on the hands that are wielding it. Similarly, machines are here to make our lives better. Having said that, nobody stops us from abusing the comfort.

The first reason that machines are good is that they can do complex, repetitive mechanical tasks accurately. This in turn helps to drive down production costs for all people. The success of assembly line production is a classic point in case. The success of production line system enabled Henry Ford to revolutionize car production and bring in cars for everybody. If not for machines, this would not have been possible. 

The second reason that machines improve the quality of our lives is that they help us to do daily chores  faster. Vacuum cleaners make cleaning faster, washing machines make washing easier and sewing machines enable faster sewing. This saves humans precious time that they can invest in other useful, productive activities. 

Lastly, machines can do tasks deemed too dangerous or almost impossible for human beings for the benefit of everyone. NASA's use of a robot to explore Mars clearly illustrate this point. Without using machine it would not have been possible to collect so much data from such a far-off, inhospitable planet. Such explorations may one day be crucial to the very survival of human beings.

Concluding, machines are human being's best allies in progress. They improve our lives continually. Using better tools allows human being to rule this planet, and machines are a tool. Nevertheless, every tool has a usage and one cannot use a sword when one needs a needle. It is always possible to abuse a facility. In such cases the fault lies with the user and not the machine. On their own machines are useful and contribute positively to our lives.