Writing Feedback / 'spend your life in your own way' - GMAT ESSAY - "SUCCESS" [2]

"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.

Success means different things to different people. People define success on the basis of their perception of life. However, "to be able to spend your life in your own way" is neither a single nor a complete definition of success. So, hereafter, I would present the position against the given definition of success.

Lets take a glance of movie stars. A herd of the actors and the actresses embarked on a career as a film star which is the desired way of leading their life. But when we talk of the successful ones, only a few stars such as Amitabh Bachhan, Hema Malini and Salman Khan comes into our mind. These celebrated icons are successful because of their commendable achievements in life. In fact, now they are success they are more prone to spend their life as expected by the public at large. They can decide upon the movie to act on but many times they cannot play the role of movies which they want to. They can attend only a few selected events despite they wish to involve and enjoy other events as well. Many constraints arise in the path of their life that do not allow them pass their life in their own way. Though, they are successful because of their glorious performance.

Meanwhile, the above definition of success seems to imply that even the bacchanalians are successful because they are able to dissipate their life in their own fashion by indulging themselves in excessive drinking and promiscuity. Similarly, some of the college students like to pass their time by dabbling, going on outing and partying with friends and they do the same but fails in their academic field. Nevertheless, these kind of people also claim that "I have achieved success in my life" because they are spending their life in their own way. But the fact is that they are only satisfied for the fulfillment of their unpleasant wants and they are not called successful persons by our society.

Even the King of the nation, crowned by the success, is not able to spend his life in his own way. He needs to evince the royal decorum all the time with no exception even while interacting with his children. The true success of the King lies in efficacious and prudent use of power to rule the country, thereby, creating a developed and a peaceful nation. The king may arbitrarily use the power to expend his life but people do not use the term "successful" for such type of King. Rather, the display of the justice and the security, hoped by the nation from the king, will make him success. In other word, success means to accomplish the goal where goal serves the one who attains it as well as adds the value and contributes for some good cause in society.

In the context of business organizations, the company is successful when it is able to meet the demands of the consumer with their products and services. The successful companies conduct market research on a regular fashion, though they dislike it, in order to predict the changing needs of the consumer and then to create the products as to fully meet the expectations of market at large. These successful companies design the products and the services on the basis of what targeted consumer is awaiting for from such company.

In essence, each member of the society has many roles in their life throughout their life-cycle and it is the society that decides on what those roles ask for. Success means to thrive your goal under the purview of role you bear at that given instant. The mere spending of life in one's own way is not success. The praiseworthy input to society instead of notorious way of living is success. In true sense, success means "to be able to discharge your roles notably in the society".

Writing Feedback / Restraint in the use of Power impresses people most [3]

"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint in the use of that power impresses people most"

Explain what you think this quotation means and discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with it.

There is nothing extra-ordinary to exercise the power by its beholder but to control the use of that power and yet prove one's capability is remarkable. People feel awe when the powerful entities use their power judiciously in the interest of whole nation and its mankind. The same thing influence me as well and so I support the assertion made in quotation that the restraint in the use of power impresses people most.

There are umpteen examples that construe how the decision to discard the use of power pacified blazing conflicts between two powerful parties and restored the peace. One of the events from history that can best be cited is the Cuban Missile Crisis which was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. But thanks to President John F. Kennedy who opt for peaceful negotiation and agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey in exchange for Soviet Missiles from Cuba. This was the boon that saved the entire world from great world war. At this time, if President John F. Kennedy had decided to resort to use of nuclear power then the world would have devastated. Still today, people reminiscence President John F. Kennedy with honor and respect because of his modest use of power.

The above example also shows that there is no need to flaunt one's power by it's rash use. People revere those who embrace the authority with it's ensued responsibility and thus, exert their power under constraints. Above all, what people detest the most is the arbitrary use of that power. Here, the excerpt from a movie titled "Schindler's List" that is grounded on real life of German businessman, Oskar Schindler, elucidates how powerful person can touch the heart of crowds of people by prudent use of that power. The character of the movie named Amon Goeth was the German Army Official who exploited his power and arbitrarily kill Polish Jewish. People suffered from his tyrannical and brutal behavior. However, Schindler, despite being German, never abused his power rather he saved the lives of more than thousands of Polish Jewish during the holocaust by employing them in his factories. Thus, Schindler is elevated in the eyes of Jewish.

In present context, Delhi city of India is said to be the place for powerful person only. Traffic congestion and road accidents are very high in this city due to ineffective traffic rules. The traffic rules are made ineffective by those so called powerful people. These people and their kids flaunt their power and break traffic rules frequently. Corruption is reached to peak due to hype of power. These are not what people applauds. The people desire the welfare of the country which is not possible through excessive exploitation of power. That will only lead to indiscipline, injustice and irresponsible behavior.

Hence, the simplicity and humility of powerful person is commendable that is appreciated by the people. Of course, the nation should be powerful enough to defend but yet it only need to make aware of possession of its power to prevent from possible threats of attack. The humbleness and modesty is appealing not only to peers but also to opponents. So, it is obvious that people are inspired more by decorum of powerful persons than by their ostentatious behavior.

Writing Feedback / GMAT "Corporations should try to eliminate the ranks and salary grades" [NEW]

"Corporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise. A 'flat' organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees".

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.

The issue in the opinion stated above is controversial one. The elimination of many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise can create congenial working environment by removing hesitation in communication and developing cooperation among employees. While at the same time, it may be viewed as injustice to some employees who really deserve high rank and pay for applying their business acuity for organizational success. In my view, a 'flat' organizational structure does not necessarily encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees.

Every employee of an organization enter business world and corporations with their own personal goal that is different from others in organization. They give their effort to attain overall goal of organization because it will ultimately lead to achievement of their own personal goal in some form of rewards such as salary increment, fringe and benefits, high rank and position, or something that differentiate them from other employees in organization. A flat organizational structure hardly aid in satisfying the employees who give priority to high prestige, pride and honor resulting from their outstanding performance in organization. In fact, the impact of flat organizational structure could be counterproductive. The highly skilled employees may not be willing to exert their best effort and apply their expertise due to the knowledge that their extraordinary performance is not likely to produce high salary grade and position that will give him recognition different from his colleague. On the other hand, there is no actuation for mediocre employees to improve their performance if they are already counted in the same ranks and salary grades with superior employees.

Also, it is unfair to give no heed to experience and expertise which is gained by employees after their long time period of commitment and devotion to work. The industrious employees rather get vexed from their work which offers no scope in terms of ascending status and pay grade in organization. Another matter of concern is decision making on a particular issue, where there is high probability of conflict among employees in flat organizational structure as employees belong to same rank and share equal authority. The problem will be exacerbated in case the organization consists of large number of employees. Yes, the advantage of flat organizational structure is limited to organizations that have fewer employees and requires uninterrupted regular flow of information to conduct the business work of organization. For example, IT organizations require continuous exchange of information which is it's sole business and consist of fewer employees than that of manufacturing organizations. The tasks of IT organizations are broadly classified that ask for same qualifications and skills from it's employees to accomplish those tasks. In manufacturing organizations hierarchy is essential to make employees accountable for their respective job.

Hence, it can be concluded that flat organizational structure cannot always boost up cooperation among employees. The nature and type of organization, size and business of organization, nature of it's employees are the factors that need to be considered to adopt the particular type of organizational structure in order to reap it's benefits.