Worker Interest in Management Issues

The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter:

“The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The writer reasons that since a majority of workers showed interests in certain management issues, it can be deduced that they are not apathetic about them. On the surface the reasoning looks just fine but there are certain flaws if one looks closely.

The key thing is that it seems that the workers are only interested in issues that concern them in particular like benefits programs and corporate restructuring. This cannot be seen as an evidence of their interest in management issues. At best it can be seen as an interest in their own welfare and concern about their own future. It has nothing to do with management issues. If a survey shows that the majority of workers show a healthy interest in knowing what decisions the management is taking in order to achieve the company's vision, its long term strategies and how it is being implemented; I can buy the argument that they are indeed taking interest in management issues. The issues mentioned by writer are the ones that can affect the life of the workers. True they are management issues too but the interest of workers does not come out from an interest in management. They just wish to understand the core things that affect them. At best it can be said that the workers are more aware and well-informed about management issues that concern them than they were before. 

This can be explained with a simple example. A lot of people in any country are generally interested in politics and follow it keenly. A lot of them may understand it, follow it and even study it. However that does not mean that they have any serious interest in running the country or statecraft. The intention can be simply knowing if they are being taken care of or not by the state. It may even be an intention to stay aware so as to insulate themselves from any possible bad event or take advantage of any good event. However it cannot be equated with the desire to rule the country or understand the nuances of statecraft. Similarly the interest of workers in management issues that affect them in particular cannot be equated with an interest in management issues in general. The reasoning is deceptively reassuring but is not totally right.

Making Monetary System Electronic

“For hundreds of years, the monetary system of most countries has been based on the exchange of metal coins and printed pieces of paper. However, because of recent developments in technology, the international community should consider replacing the entire system of coins and paper with a system of electronic accounts of credits and debits.”

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.

Theoretically, electronic accounts sounds like a reasonably good idea to me. Till the time electronic money is backed by Gold reserves and foreign exchange reserves, its credibility is no less than paper and metal based currency system. Such a step would be environment friendly as it would save enormous amount of paper and metal. With money safely encrypted in hard drives and not safes, it would also discourage criminals from committing petty thefts, robberies and pick-pocketing. It would also make transactions quicker, faster, safer, accurate and more reliable. Currency trading would also benefit from such a transition. Making stocks, bonds and other money-market instruments electronic has strengthened money markets the world over.  Hence it is not far-fetched or unreasonable to assume that actual money may take the same path. In fact credit cards and debit cards seem like miniature flag bearers of an era when money would become totally electronic. 

However the practical implementation of the same is still a distant reality. It is not that we simply need to raise the standards of e-security to neutralize threats from hackers in form of electronic thefts and data misuse. The basic problem is lack of development and technology in a big part of the world. The first world countries cannot exist in isolation and need to reach out to other developing countries too. In the end a system can be only as strong as its weakest link. With that perspective it can be really dangerous to suddenly turn the currency system electronic. Over time it is inevitable but is difficult to implement all over the world right now.

The last question is the amount of information that such a system can place in anybody's hand is very dangerous. The possibility of somebody being able to watch every financial transaction done anywhere on the planet is, somehow, not very comforting. Hence this system has to be backed by strong privacy laws to prevent Governments and corporations from covertly spying on people or each other. 

Concluding, I agree with the basic vision presented as it will work for the benefit of a large number of people. Similar revolution in money markets support the idea. However to implement it on the world level is difficult due to prevalent disparity in development. Such a system also needs to be put in check with strong laws to prevent blatant misuse.

Giving Advice

“The best way to give advice to other people is to find out what they want and then advise them how to attain it.”

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.

It is said in many different ways across various cultures that people who give unsolicited advice often get into trouble. Salt and advice should not be passed until asked for. There are a score of folk-lores and parables built around it in Zen literature and Hindu scriptures too. So, for starters, I do not believe in giving unsolicited advice and hence do not agree with the basic assumption of the statement that one wants to readily give advice.

Provided we are in a situation that we have decided to give advice, I agree that at least we need to find out what other person wants before advising him. The problem is how do you know what the other person wants? With no God given gifts of omniscience and no worldly qualification in psychology a lot of people can find this exercise, lets say, a bit difficult. Provided that they can do it or the other party clearly states it, possibly good advice can be given. Seriously. However a good advice cannot be function of knowing only what the other person wants.

The basic problem is that no two people have the same experience. So while giving advice one has to keep in mind that despite his best intentions the person in question may not be able to implement the advice in its spirit. This is precisely what makes the whole advice giving business so hazardous when one considers only the stated need of the other party. One also needs to remember that generally changes do not come overnight. So even if you know what the other person wants, any short term advice will seldom if ever work. Advice, if asked for, needs to take into account not only what the other person wants but also what he needs, the unpredictable human nature, long term nature of change and the responsibility giving advice brings. One has to also keep in mind the other person's sincerity and intention. If the person is not sincere or plans to use the advice to harm somebody then it may be better to not give it. If all these factors are not kept in mind, giving advice will not work for the benefit of the concerned person.

Artificial Sweeteners or Sugar?

The following appeared in the health section of a magazine on trends and lifestyles:

“People who use the artificial sweetener aspartame are better off consuming sugar, since aspartame can actually contribute to weight gain rather than weight loss. For example, high levels of aspartame have been shown to trigger a craving for food by depleting the brain of a chemical that registers satiety, or the sense of being full. Furthermore, studies suggest that sugars, if consumed after at least 45 minutes of continuous exercise, actually enhance the body’s ability to burn fat. Consequently, those who drink aspartame-sweetened juices after exercise will also lose this

calorie-burning benefit. Thus it appears that people consuming aspartame rather than sugar are unlikely to achieve their dietary goals.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The argument is reasonably well thought. The writer points to the fact that higher level of aspartame can trigger craving for food. This fact definitely makes aspartame less attractive for people who control their diets in order to control weight. The writer further supports his argument by pointing to the fact that sugar and not aspartame can increase the body's fat burning abilities if consumed after 45 minutes of continuous exercise. Again for people exercising to burn fats and stay trim this is another strong reason to take sugar. If the ultimate aim is to loose weight, then this argument undoubtedly presents good reasons to consume sugar instead of aspartame.

However, this reasoning will fall flat on its face if the dietary aims are not weight reduction. For example this reasoning cannot apply to people  following an alternative diet because they are suffering from diabetes or they are very thin people who wish to gain weight. The argument also safely ignores the possibility of the presence of other artificial sweeteners that may not have the same side-effects as aspartame. One may also counter-argue that the increase in appetite may not be such a bad thing if the person in question eats more fruits and salad. In effect it may actually be a good thing for somebody suffering from lack of appetite. The writer's argument is also silent about the real benefits one may get from the calorie burning effects of sugar given the fact that the sugar will also bring in more calories. If the extra calories that sugar bring are all that one burns due to increase in fat burning rate, the option to switch to sugar would no longer remain as attractive. 

Concluding, the argument seems to focus on people who wish to reduce their weight but generalizes the reasoning for everybody. Even for its key audience some key questions still remain unanswered. This affects the strength of reasoning. 

Seeking Business Opportunities

The following appeared as part of an article in a magazine devoted to regional life:

“Corporations should look to the city of Helios when seeking new business opportunities or a new location. Even in the recent recession, Helios’s unemployment rate was lower than the regional average. It is the industrial center of the region, and historically it has provided more than its share of the region’s manufacturing jobs. In addition, Helios is attempting to expand its economic base by attracting companies that focus on research and development of innovative technologies.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

I generally agree with the reasoning presented. The writer wishes to keep the city as a preferred choice for corporations seeking new business opportunities. It shows a forward thinking and a leadership aspiring for better opportunities for its people. New business not only bring in job opportunities, they also add to administration's coffers in form of direct and indirect taxes with both the company and the people contributing. With increased prosperity and more funds at its disposal the administration can work on improving the life of its citizens. However it is assumed that the concerned area has excellent environmental laws and meticulously planned industrial allocation. Without that the same industries may lead to problems and degradation of the area.

The writer points at unemployment rate to support his line of thinking. I agree with it as mushrooming new business keep unemployment in check. This is supported by the fact that the area has been an industrial centre historically and harbours a lot of manufacturing. Manufacturing is generally labour intensive. Even automated plants need skilled on-floor technicians, engineers, inventory managers etc. Hence it is logical to assume and reason that the area has lesser unemployment due to its industrial leadership.

The attempt to diversify the region's industry portfolio is a smart move and I agree that it can make the region more attractive. The fact that this diversification is into research and development makes the decision smarter. The research may be into subjects concerning current industries or something different. This has the potential of making the region attractive to not only the current industries but will also attract newer industries. All in all this can cement the region's position as the leading industrial centre. With these decisions in place, corporations will definitely look to the city when seeking new business opportunities.

Success

“There is only one definition of success—to be able to spend your life in your own way.”

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this definition of success? Support your position by using reasons and examples from your reading, your own experience, or your observation of others.

I strongly disagree with this statement. First of all it is a relative world. People see things in different ways and hence one mold cannot fit all. To claim anything to the only way reeks of a nauseating arrogance, fanaticism and self-righteousness. To any such idea I can just say one thing: thanks but no thanks.

The writer reckons that success is being able to spend your life in your way. The ability to spend life in one's own way has economic, political and cultural consequences.

On the economic front a person may want to be able to afford all possible luxuries. Associating success with monetary gains promotes greed and de-humanization of poor. It promotes an egoistic "dog-eat-dog" world concept and wasteful consumerism. It condemns the people with this belief into a perpetual race of material acquisitions with a constant restless feeling of ambition and getting more. Please understand that I am not advocating a socialist setup which is the same thing turned upside down. I am all in for a better life minus the greed. I also believe that a person cannot judge his success on basis of money only.

Politically and culturally this definition of success may translate into forcing the person's point of view on a large majority many of whom may not agree with it. To drive home the point: if Hitler would have been able to spend his life his way, one can just imagine how the world would have looked like. People often have conflicting views and that is why there is a Government that may enforce a particular political system. Without that there would be anarchy with a lot of groups trying to be "successful" in imposing there will. After all success is the ability to spend your life in your own way. Or is it?

Definition of success varies from people to people. It is not always a selfish "me-first" definition that insists on doing everything it's way. Success, at the end of the day, is a meaning that people try to impart to their existence. For some it is family, for some welfare of society and for some even staying alive! When asked what is success, Buddha said that success is a smile that nobody can take from you. With that I leave you to wonder what success really is for you.

How Much Team Work is Good?

“All groups and organizations should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties. Giving one person central authority and responsibility for a project or task is not an effective way to get work done.”

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Support your views with reasons and/or specific examples drawn from your own work or school experiences, your observations, or your reading.

I agree that it is ideal and good to have a team in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties. The idea appeals to the basic human , democratic and egalitarian sense. It echoes the view that everybody is equal and hence needs to play an equal role. However I am not so sure about the practical feasibility of this idea.

Before I am accused of being a totalitarian, I can assert in no uncertain terms that I absolutely support the central tenets of democracy and equality. However I am also a firm believer in meritocracy. Socialistic and communistic attitudes scare me as history shows a score of countries and institutions more often going down the path of self-destruction and mediocrity due to taking the so-called egalitarian inclusive route. Let's face it: we would like everybody to be equal but people are simply not equal. Every human being is unique in terms of thinking, personality, attitude, intentions and goals. One cast cannot fit all. It is ridiculous to expect everybody to display good leadership skills and display the willingness to take responsibility. Forcing it down somebody's throat or giving decision making power to somebody who simply does not care can be catastrophic. It may be useful to do so as a part of some social experiment is some college and then may be use the findings in the corporate culture. Replacing the current system of chain of command with an unproven system is not a risk I would be willing to take with my company.

The companies generally work on the principle of sharing responsibility. Good managers know how to delegate and not micro-manage. However key decisions are always best left to an expert or a panel of experts. A central authority can monitor the progress and keep things in check. This cuts down red-tapism and speeds up decisions. This, of course, brings in the age old cliche of "who shall guard the guards?". This can be achieved by a 360 degree feedback in which people are allowed to give feedback on the central authority and vice-versa. Periodical reviews and strong adherence to processes can cut down misuse of power and force people to be on their toes. It is not wise to replace a central authority with a group of people without taking into account their suitability for the job and the red- tapism it can bring in.

Concluding, an organization essentially works on the idea of sharing responsibilities and duties at a macro level. At a micro level, however, these need to be precise in order to avoid confusion. Every man's servant is often no man's servant. Responsibilities, duties and decision making powers need to be a function of personal drive, ability, track record, suitability and experience. Any other way would not be beneficial for the institution . Having a central authority responsible is not a bad idea if it can be backed by regular reviews, 360 feedback policies and strong processes.