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.

Water for Health?

The following appeared in an article in a health and fitness magazine:

"Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good

health and that it is completely free of bacteria. Residents of Saluda, the small town where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Even though Saluda Natural Spring Water may seem expensive, drinking it instead of tap water is a wise investment in good health."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The article tries to convince the reader that paying a higher price for Saluda Natural Spring Water is a wise decision as it is good for health. The reasoning presented, however, is not convincing.

The article presumes that mineral water bottled at any other place does not have similar minerals. If it is mentioned clearly that it is indeed the case, then the company has case for demanding a higher price; else the argument gets seriously weakened.

The article also implies that only drinking mineral water is responsible for the good health of Saluda residents.  Since the article clearly states that Saluda is a small town, a clean environment and a healthy lifestyle may as well be responsible for the good health. Attributing it to drinking water alone seems pretty far-fetched. If it is the question of supplying the body with essential minerals, eating a balanced diet or taking mineral supplements seems to be a better solution than drinking expensive water. The writer is also careful to pick only one statistic, frequency of hospitalization, as the basis of his assertion. If this is supported by other statistics like life expectancy and number of times people actually fell sick but were not hospitalized, the argument may gain some strength.

Concluding, The argument on its own seems a bit far-fetched. If it argues its case on basis of uniqueness and more statistics, it can gain some strength. On its own or with any information to the contrary it is weak and dubious.

Broader Background or Deeper Knowledge

"Some employers who recruit recent college graduates for entry-level jobs evaluate applicants only on their performance in business courses such as accounting, marketing, and economics. However, other employers also

expect applicants to have a broad background in such courses as history, literature, and philosophy."

Do you think that, in the application process, employers should emphasize one type of background-either

specialization in business courses or a more varied academic preparation-over the other? Why or why not? Develop

your position by using reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The answer to this question lies in the position for which the hiring is being done. If the position is highly technical and needs minimum interaction with people, it makes sense to focus only on the required subject. But if the position may eventually require a person to participate in client interaction, corporate strategy or a lot of people interaction, it makes sense to hire a person with a broad background.

For example, when hiring a database administrator the most important factor is the person's knowledge about databases. Anything else may be good to have but is not likely to have any significant effect on the quality of the job. On the other hand a person hired into the human resources department may need to have a broader background as it may help him to communicate with the company employees in a better way. Similarly a Sales person's personality and background can play a more pivotal role than his actual knowledge of the sales lifecycle. Another reason to prefer people with broader background for a strategic role is that most of the things in the world are inter-connected. Financial needs can drive marketing and a good marketing may depend on feedback from the sales force. A person with a broader background is more likely to notice these connections and make constructive inputs to strategic decisions. 

A person with a strong knowledge in a small number of subjects is extremely useful and irreplaceable. Nevertheless such a person cannot be expected to look beyond his subjects to seek solutions to problems affecting the whole company. They may also face difficulties if given a role that entails interaction with people of different backgrounds. Hence the employers should emphasize a broader background or a strong subject knowledge on the basis of technicality and the amount of people interaction required in the role. 

Restaurant Industry Growth

The following appeared as part of an article in the travel section of a newspaper:

"Over the past decade, the restaurant industry in the country of Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth. This surge can be expected to continue in the coming years, fueled by recent social changes: personal incomes are rising, more leisure time is available, single-person households are more common, and people have a greater interest in gourmet food, as evidenced by a proliferation of publications on the subject."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The argument projects high growth in the restaurant industry in the coming years. Historic growth and recent social changes are used to back the assertion. 

Without analyzing the actual factors responsible for the growth the historic data cannot be used reliably to make future predictions. The growth may have been the result of many social, economic and political factors: the Government promoting the industry, steady growth of economy, stable Governments, growth in people's income, a population explosion, increase in the number of single-person households and an increased interest in Gourmet food. We need to carefully analyze the past data to ascertain the factors which contributed to the growth and compare them with expected future conditions. Only then we can hope to make a reasonable prediction. 

The writer has correctly identified some of the factors that can fuel the growth in the restaurant industry. However if the economy was to go in recession or if there was a civil war, none of these factors would be able to sustain the growth. Depending on prevailing bank interest rates and markets, surplus money may end up being either spent or invested. Leisure time can be spent in a variety of activities like travel and sports.  Even the interest in gourmet food can translate into sale of recipe books and people taking interest in learning gourmet cooking. The changes are credible and logical in the sense that they can contribute to the growth of the restaurant industry. Nevertheless they may or may not make a difference depending on a lot of factors.  

Hence the argument can be made stronger if it clearly states that the factors listed by the author are the factors that actually contributed to the growth in the restaurant industry in the past and that the current economic and political environment is conducive for future growth of the industry. Without that the line of reasoning is weak and speculative.

Make Money or Serve Society

"If the primary duty and concern of a corporation is to make money, then conflict is inevitable when the corporation must also acknowledge a duty to serve society."

From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

From my perspective, the above statement is inaccurate. 

The statement seems to imply that any industry that acknowledges a duty to serve the society will do so at the cost of getting detracted from its primary duty of making money. 

The case of Muhammad Yunnus of Bangladesh, who won a nobel prize for his micro-finance business, illustrates how wrong this assumption is. His business lent small amount of money at a nominal interest rate to small-scale social entrepreneurs in villages. These were generally women who would employ other women in a village based small scale industry like making baskets, knitting etc. Not only the business was profitable, it created prosperity at the bottom of the social ladder. The desire to serve the society did not conflict with profitability.

What is true for social entreprenuers like Yunnus, is true for other industries as well. Anybody who has a doubts just needs to see that Bill Gates's Microsoft, Narayan Murthy's Infosys and Richard Branson's Virgin Group are involved in a lot a charitable activities. Acknowledging a duty to serve the society has not led to any conflict in case of these very successful companies. Hence, any claim to the contrary is not credible.

The desire to serve the society and the desire to make money are not necessarily at odds with each other. If it was not so, a lot of successful companies and social entrepreneurs would not have made any money what-so-ever. The very fact that these entities are profitable in spite of serving the society clearly exposes the inaccuracy of the statement.