Unanswered [5] | Urgent [0]
  

Home / Writing Feedback   % width Posts: 4

The employees would not stay in one job for various reasons. It's inappropriate.


jag 5 / 9  
Sep 28, 2010   #1
QUESTION: Business should hire employees for their entire career lives. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

It is true that having employees for a very long period in an organization would help build a strong organizational culture, avoid issues related to high staff turn-over and achieve a high level of employee commitment and loyalty. However, despite these benefits, I do not agree with the idea that a business should hire employees for their entire career lives for the following reasons;

The employees would not stay in one job for various reasons even if the business wishes so. These reasons can vary from personal to many other complicated issues. For example, suppose that the spouse of a female employee gets a permanent overseas assignment. If this spouse is the main bread winner of the family, it is very unlikely that this female employee would decide to continue her job rather than leaving the job to join her spouse. Therefore, it is not realistic for the business to expect that employees would stay with them for long period mainly due to their commitment and loyalty towards the company.

Further, the business should response effectively to the socio economic environmental changes for its own survival and growth. Therefore it may have to change its business model or business processes in order to respond to such changes. In such events the business would require people with new skills and competencies. Keeping old employees are not in a position to contribute towards success of the business due to lack of new skills and competencies would be a major overhead for the business. In such events the business can get rid of them easily without incurring large costs on paying compensation if its employees have signed short term contracts. Therefore hiring employees for long periods can have adverse effects when the business requires new skills.

In addition to that, although the organizational culture becomes stronger and powerful with one set of employees, the same culture may impose dangerous threats to the organization in situations that demand an organizational change. Many management studies have shown that established organizational cultures are hard to change and they resist heavily to organizational changes. However, in today's competition the businesses have become more dynamic and the ones that effectively handle organizational changes can outperform its competitors. If the business hires people on short term basis, then such employees cannot strongly influence the organizational culture. With such employees, the business is able to have smooth transitions when they need to change.

Although hiring people for a long period has its own merits such as long term commitment , low staff turn-over rates, strong organizational culture etc., the above reasons have led me to conclude that hiring employees for their entire career life is inappropriate for today's businesses.

mea505 - / 265  
Sep 28, 2010   #2
Hi alahakon!

I have critiqued some of your work in the past. Say, I do understand and agree with the next to the last paragraph of this essay, but the preceding two paragraphs are somewhat difficult to follow due to the lack of substantial meanings. I would work on the two paragraphs mentioned and then re-present the material to the forum -- unless you can explain what those two paragraphs mean by editing them.

--Mark :)

If this spouse is the main bread winner of the family, it is very unlikely that this female employee would decide to continue her job rather than leaving the job to join her spouse.

--> Here, I would probably not use the term, "bread winner." Choose a different term for the spouse that makes the most money. Not everyone knows what it means and not all cultures (even in the states) use the term.

Furthermore , the business should responserespond effectively to the socio- economic environmental changes for its own survival and growth.
--> What does this sentence mean?

In such events the business would require people with new skills and competencies.
--> In what events?

Keeping old employees that are not in a position to contribute towards success of the business due to lack of new skills and competencies would be a major overheadliability for the business.

The next to the last paragraph would make a lot more sense if the preceding two paragraphs made some sense. But, because there are a lack of strong words in the preceding paragraphs, the essence of the sentences is difficult to follow.
jems007 5 / 10  
Sep 28, 2010   #3
Keeping old employees are not in a position to contribute towards success of the business due to lack of new skills and competencies would be a major overhead for the business.

-->It sounds vague.

...It will be easy to understand if u split the sentences.
mea505 - / 265  
Sep 28, 2010   #4
I also found that if the word "overhead" were to be changed with "liability," the sentence(s) might sound better.

--Mark


Home / Writing Feedback / The employees would not stay in one job for various reasons. It's inappropriate.