Analysis of Issue

"Employees always perform better when given a say in determining the boundaries of their roles within a company."

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree to the view that employees have a higher chance of performing better when given a say in determining the boundaries of their roles within a company. However, such freedom may not always result in better performance.

Every employee is interested in putting his or her best foot forward, in ensuring the job gets completed to the satisfaction of the employer. In his own interest, the employee would like to earn the recognition of the employer. This means that employees would do well to work on tasks that enable them to utilise their strengths rather than expose their weaknesses. When strengths are being utilised, the best output follows naturally. Therefore, the first step in eliciting a higher level of performance from employees would be to ensure they are playing to their strengths, by allocating them tasks where they can do so.

There is more than one way, in my opinion, of bringing employees strengths to the fore. Allowing them to have a say in determining their work would ensure they naturally drift towards and choose those tasks that they perceive are tailor-made for them. This also ensures the employer gets to know first-hand where the interest of the employee lie - this may not always be reflected appropriately in the curriculum vitae of a new employee. Thereby, the right role is established for a given employee.

Once the right role is established, the task of determining the boundaries of the role is purely dependent on the interest of the employee in stretching the given boundary in any direction that he or she feels comfortable, and works to the advantage of the company. By not restricting the employee to stretch this boundary, at the least we may ensure that further strengths of the employee come to the fore. It may also help in plug the gap in the competencies of co-workers, if the employee can fill in for their inabilities and lapses. This certainly would result in more contribution and therefore higher performance of the employee.

Ultimately, best performance results when ability meets need and there is a sense of responsibility that fuels performance. There have been several important strides made in industry due to the superior abilities of employees. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are two examples that immediately come to my mind - people like them have set their own boundaries, thereby extending the boundaries of the industry and drastically changing the lifestyle of many people in the world with their inventions. More closer, I have in my personal experience also observed that more the responsibility given to an employee, more responsible does he or she become - this ensures a superior performance, if not the best.

Having supported the idea of giving a say to employees in determining their role, however, employees that are wayward and not really interested in doing the job, who are solely there to earn a salary, may not really make the most of an opportunity to define their own roles. For such employees, it may be better to define their role and set the expectations from them very clearly, so that employers can at least ensure a minimum level of performance towards achieving the company's objectives. In sum, I agree employees would almost always perform better given more say on their roles - the exceptions to that rule are few and far between.

Analysis of Argument

The following appeared in The Homebuilder magazine, a local publication with a focus on construction and sale of real-estate properties:

“According to the most recent survey of our readers, nearly 70% of the respondents indicated that they are planning to build or purchase a new home over the next 2 years. These results indicate that the growth in the construction industry is likely to accelerate in the near future. Therefore, this industry continues to offer lucrative opportunities for investment.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The report in The Homebuilder magazine infers, from the results of a survey where 70% of the respondents were planning to build or purchase a new home over the next 2 years, that this points to an impending acceleration of growth in the construction industry in the near future. This argument could be flawed, for more than one reason.

Firstly, the survey focuses on purely the dimension of demand for homes, in fact, merely the interest in building homes. This does not necessarily translate to a growth in demand if it were the case that such an interest was expressed regularly in the past few years - that would only indicate that demand for homes was consistently at a high level over the years, meaning that there may not be a need for accelerating the supply of it.

Secondly, in a situation where there is a high availability of homes that have been been built but not yet bought, the home market would already be in a state of surplus, where developing new homes may not result in them being bought. Moreover, depreciation of value of existing unoccupied homes would make new developments more expensive and unattractive to potential buyers.

Thirdly, the construction industry's prospects are also driven by similar forces as other industries. The fluctuations in the availability and prices of raw materials such as concrete influence the cost of developing new construction projects. In order to meet targets, the construction companies often pass on the effects of such changes to the buyers, who have to ultimately bear the brunt of rising prices. Therefore, in a situation where raw materials are scarce and their prices higher than normal, potential buyers may back out of expensive purchase decisions, rendering any investment in construction less profitable.

In sum, in attempting to assess the opportunity available in the construction industry, the article in the magazine fails to make some key considerations - level of existing unoccupied homes available for purchase, changes to the demand for homes over the past few years or so, and effects of other business environmental forces such as demand and supply of raw materials and other resources. For these reasons, the conclusion drawn from the survey results may not hold water.

Analysis of Issue essay

"Although the modern information age has opened up channels of communication that never before existed, it, paradoxically, has destroyed the foundation of community by isolating individuals in a technological world that involves little real human interaction."

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your viewpoint using reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
--------------------------------------

My immediate reaction to the position that modern information age comes with a certain level of destruction of real human interaction as a foundation of community, is that perhaps there is some truth to it. However, I would like to examine the position in detail before taking a stance on it.
Compared to about half a century back, today the human race has at its disposal several facilities and gadgets that gives it the power to communicate any time, anywhere, with our friends, family and contacts, regardless of geography or time zone. The mobile phone is the quintessential example of such a gadget. Today, India and China are the largest markets for mobile phones, making it the single most powerful channel of communication in terms of being connected to individuals around the globe day and night, regardless of them being in the developed or developing world. This points us to the perceived value of possessing a channel of communication that offers incessant connectivity - towards being in touch with our dear ones, towards conducting business transactions. Taking the example of this one most prevalent gadget, it is easy to see that the channel of communication offered by it is being purposefully utilised towards more and more human interaction, rather than lesser interaction.
So, what is lost? If the position stated were to mean face-to-face interaction between human beings as what is real human interaction, perhaps that is not sufficient enough to isolate individuals - more so, into a technological world - then I would agree to it. However, because the very channels of communication opened up are being utilised by people to promote and further human communication rather than destroy it, in the overall analysis, it appears that the position makes a very serious but questionable assumption that only face-to-face communication between people devoid of any burden of purposefulness or lack of choice of individuals to communicate with, connotes a strong foundation in community.
Therefore, because the position does not examine the different dimensions of the foundation of community thoroughly, even within the narrow confines of human-human interaction, it may be far-fetched to state first that there is a paradox in having new channels of communication and not strengthening the foundation of community through them, and also forcing a strong relationship between face-to-face human interaction and the notion of foundation of community. In sum, I disagree with the position taken.

The following appeared in a corporate memorandum of a beverage manufacturer:

“Our promotional price reductions on energy drinks have been highly successful, as we have seen a dramatic increase in unit sales. Further, surveys of our consumers indicate that this promotion was favorably received by the majority of our customers. Therefore, to improve our company’s profitability and enhance its perception in the eyes of consumers, similar price reductions should be offered on all drinks produced by our firm.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The beverage manufacturer, in the memorandum, has used the positive sales results of one promotional offer on one particular drink category, to conclude that such promotional offers on their other products would also result in a similar sales boost. Such an argument needs to be viewed with some caution. Let us examine the conditions under which such a conclusion is warranted. If the consumer perception of the quality of the manufacturer's products across the spectrum is exceptional, and if any occurrence of poor sales of the firm is only because of the high price of its products, then we might be able to say that a reduction in prices of its products might attract more customers into buying the products. We could then explain the positive results of the promotional price reductions on the energy drinks. This information, however, has not been provided. On the other hand, if the consumer perception of the firm's products is not very positive in general, then the only way that one can explain the results of the promotion is the high demand for energy drinks in the lower price category and concomitant dearth of supply. If such a high demand is not prevalent for other beverages, then the firm is highly unlikely to improve its profitability through sales of those beverages owing to a price reduction. There is no comment made on the simultaneous improvement in the quality or change in formulation of the energy drinks prior to its promotional launch - one might then be able to attribute the dramatic increase in sales to this betterment of quality. We also need to know the historical promotional spend on the firm's products - on commercials in the media, for instance - to ascertain if a particular boost to the spend on the energy drinks promotion causing a much greater publicity for the product is the cause of the dramatic increase in sales. In sum, to conclude without information and thereby evidence based other indicators such as demand, supply, promotion budgets and quality, the beverage manufacturer is perhaps not being pragmatic in their evaluation of the results of the energy drinks promotion, towards decision-making and future sales strategy of their other products.

My third essay.

ESSAY QUESTION:
“Since no business can be all things at once, companies that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer a diverse product mix.”

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

YOUR RESPONSE:
I only agree partially to the conclusion that companies that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer a diverse product mix. The reason given, though, is rather naive. Yes, it is true that no business, for that matter no enterprise, can be all things at once. All businesses, regardless of the market they serve, indeed need to begin by offering one product or service. To build a niche for themselves, it is also true that they need to efficiently specialize in that one product or service. However, businesses that do not respond to the needs of the market, businesses that are not flexible to extend their services, or businesses that strictly offer only one form of a particular product - these may not survive.

Consider the Information Technology industry as an example. Companies like IBM and Dell indeed begun by manufacturing and selling computers. However, as the nature of computing changed, and as the needs of the market shifted from monolithic hard-wired computers to those built around flexible and open architectures, these companies had to necessarily extend their services to include the new requirement, without having to shed their expertise or provision of their earlier products. Similarly, when mobile phones were invented, telephone companies had to necessarily start manufacturing and selling those, to keep up with the needs and expectations of the market, and to stay ahead of competition in the telephone space.

Such a shift in the nature of product or service is also necessitated by the level of saturation of a market with a particular good. For example, Microsoft, once it garnered an incredible 95% of the market share in the personal computer operating system market, had to necessarily diversify into the gaming market, to make use of the expertise it possessed, in order to maintain a growth rate consistent with its aspirations. Diversification for Microsoft certainly did not hamper the continuing expansion of the original product, but offered a new avenue towards utilizing the competencies of its employees and its other resources, thereby increasing its revenue potential. Efficiency certainly lies more in utilizing resources than pigeon-holing them into the manufacturing of only one product or service.

To reiterate, efficiency of a company is determined by the manner in which the company utilizes its resources towards achieving its goals rather than restricting its goals, unless diversifying its goals is inherently inefficient. It is true that economy of scale is in many cases possible by restricting the scope of a product or service to one particular variety. However, this is not always the case. In essence, the statement that companies must specialize in one product or service to be efficient is a rather partial conclusion that does not weigh into account several important factors of performance.

2nd AWA essay

ESSAY QUESTION:

The following appeared in an article in a consumer-electronics magazine:

"Company X's latest model of digital camera to be released next month, the TR12, is being promoted as the most portable, user-friendly digital camera available, and also an excellent bargain. It can be expected to live up to these claims, because Company X's previous model, the TR11, was universally lauded as setting the standard in these areas last year."

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.

YOUR RESPONSE:

The article argues that if we were to go by past experience of market response to one of Company X's products, then we can predict favourably about the qualities of a yet-to-be-released product from the company. One may be tempted to make such a favourable conclusion about Company X's latest model of digital camera, but the reasoning towards such a conclusion is not pragmatic, in fact flawed.

Firstly, in order to predict whether the new product TR12 would be the most portable, user-friendly camera available, it would be necessary to state the benchmark for it and compare potential features of it with the benchmark. If the benchmark were Company X's previous model, the TR11, then it is important to compare the TR12 with its features, to draw conclusions about the difference in worth of the models, and thereby present some credibility in arguing it could be a very superior product.

Secondly, supporting evidence in the form of what is the track record of the quality of Company X's products (barring one) has not been provided. This sort of evidence is important to establish, with some statistical significance, the ability of Company X to produce quality products - in other words, to be able to arrive at a generalised conclusion about its capabilities. In the absence of such evidence, or any indication that the TR12 may be a logical successor to TR11 or an improvement over it, it is not appropriate to reason that because TR11 was good, TR12 is also bound to be good.

Thirdly, the underlying assumption in the argument is that there are no other companies out there that are producing any good cameras. If it came to be known that there is another company Y that is also producing a new camera that is even more superior to what company X may be able to produce, then the TR12 will simply not be the most portable and user-friendly camera that will be released. Moreover, company X may itself be producing another camera that has all the stated qualities that is even better than TR12; or, TR12 may just be an improvement over TR11, giving minor enhancements in quality - which is not enough to establish it as the most portable and user-friendly in the market.

In essence, the argument is flawed for three reasons - lack of a benchmark to compare with, lack of statistical and historical evidence about the quality of company X's products, and lack of a fuller view of all the products being produced in the market by other such companies as company X. What could make the conclusion tenable is presenting features of TR12 vis-a-vis other old and new products in the market, a thorough analysis of company X's success rate with quality of its products, and a clear description of the meaning of 'most portable' and 'user-friendly' in addition to providing a comparison of camera prices.

AWA Essay 1 - Analysis of Argument

My first essay.




ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in the personal finance section of a popular magazine:
“The average price of an acre of land in the United States is now 50 times what it was in 1970, and nearly 200 times what it was in 1920. The nation’s population is projected to keep increasing, even as the amount of land remains constant. Therefore, people who are approaching retirement should invest heavily in real estate in order to ensure their financial security.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
YOUR RESPONSE:The article in the magazine relates the effect of population increase on the availability and price of land to the financial security of retiring people, and draws the conclusion that only if retiring people invest in real estate can they be financially secure. The facts presented in the article are inadequate to draw the conclusion drawn from them, because the argument fails to take into consideration several other equally important factors that could influence financial security of individuals, whether they are retiring or not. Also, the argument assumes that there are no other forms of investment that could be more profitable than real estate, which makes it untenable.
The market value of a resource can be linked to both its availability and the demand for it. When the availability of the resource becomes scarce, if the demand for it is very high, then the market value can increase in a non-linear manner. However, there are threshold points that scarcity and demand have to surpass, in order for the increase in market value to materialise. Considering that the facts mentioned do not state anything about the availabilities of real estate in the United States, and the level of demand for it in the country, it may be short-sighted to draw a conclusion that real estate may become so scarce and demand so high that it would become a very valuable investment in the future.
The argument states that the population of the United States is projected to keep increasing. It does not, however, mention the relative projected rate of increase of population vis-a-vis the rates for the previous years. Therefore, even assuming that the price of land would continue to increase unaffected by any other economic driver, it may not continue to increase at the same rapid rate as in previous decades, if the population growth rate and therefore the demand for land does not grow at a higher rate than before.
In essence, the argument fails to start with an adequate set of premises to which appropriate reasoning may be applied in order to answer the question of how people approaching retirement may be able to increase their financial security. It also does not consider other options they may have, such as investment in shares in businesses. Correlating population increase to increase in land prices may have statistical evidence, but causal effect and outcomes of the two dimensions and their combined effect on another dimension that is financial security, cannot be predicted with confidence.