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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
The statement avers that employees of not-for-profit organizations and charities are often more highly motivated than employees of for-profit companies to deliver more at their jobs in absence of performance-appraisal, because the employees of not-for-profit organizations are solely/chiefly driven by philanthropic motives. The speaker also suggests that the company start donating a substantial portion of its profits to humanitarian causes, so that the distinguishing factor between the employees of the company and the employees of not-for-profit organizations is removed, which in turn will increase the productivity of employees at the company. The argument is full of deficiencies and is open to a lot of questions since it presents meager evidence and dubious assumptions. Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling. The argument is very evidently the upshot of an impetuous generalization.
Firstly, the comparison between employees of not-for-profit organizations and those of for-profit corporations is not a very convincing one, because each of these type of companies recruit and utilize their employees in a distinct manner. It would be naive to assume, especially owing to lack of concrete data, that what motivates employees in one type of organization might be relevant for the other also. This becomes more important in the light of the fact that there is no reason to believe that donation by automobile company might motivate its employees; on the contrary, the employees might get demoralized if they perceive that their wages or other incentives will diminish owing to channeling of Money into some other avenue.
Secondly, while mentioning that employees of not-for-profit organizations suggest that the reason for their greater motivation is the belief that their work helps to improve society, the speaker has not provided any concrete data regarding the source of revenue for those companies with which they sustain the company and the operations of company. As a result, it's hard to believe that the employees in the not-for-profit organizations will have any rational reason to expect Monetary gains because of their endeavors.
Thirdly, even if it is true that the employees of not-for-profit organizations and charities believe in the importance of their work, there is no reason to believe that the employees at the for-profit corporations do not take their work seriously. On the other hand, it's naive to assume that donation of corporate profits would bolster the morale of employees and make them think more seriously about their duties.
To buttress this argument, the speaker would do well to provide proper data related to causes of dissatisfaction among the employees of for-profit corporations. In addition to this, the speaker should also mention how exactly corporate donations may serve to enhance the morale and productivity of the company's employees.
In summary, the argument is the result of a huge speculation in which the speaker has unduly assumed a lot of unsubstantiated evidence. Had the author taken the above mentioned factors into view, the argument would have been rendered incontrovertible. But whatever has been presented here indeed fails to provide a holistic picture to the superfluous claims being made.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
The statement avers that employees of not-for-profit organizations and charities are often more highly motivated than employees of for-profit companies to deliver more at their jobs in absence of performance-appraisal, because the employees of not-for-profit organizations are solely/chiefly driven by philanthropic motives. The speaker also suggests that the company start donating a substantial portion of its profits to humanitarian causes, so that the distinguishing factor between the employees of the company and the employees of not-for-profit organizations is removed, which in turn will increase the productivity of employees at the company. The argument is full of deficiencies and is open to a lot of questions since it presents meager evidence and dubious assumptions. Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling. The argument is very evidently the upshot of an impetuous generalization.
Firstly, the comparison between employees of not-for-profit organizations and those of for-profit corporations is not a very convincing one, because each of these type of companies recruit and utilize their employees in a distinct manner. It would be naive to assume, especially owing to lack of concrete data, that what motivates employees in one type of organization might be relevant for the other also. This becomes more important in the light of the fact that there is no reason to believe that donation by automobile company might motivate its employees; on the contrary, the employees might get demoralized if they perceive that their wages or other incentives will diminish owing to channeling of Money into some other avenue.
Secondly, while mentioning that employees of not-for-profit organizations suggest that the reason for their greater motivation is the belief that their work helps to improve society, the speaker has not provided any concrete data regarding the source of revenue for those companies with which they sustain the company and the operations of company. As a result, it's hard to believe that the employees in the not-for-profit organizations will have any rational reason to expect Monetary gains because of their endeavors.
Thirdly, even if it is true that the employees of not-for-profit organizations and charities believe in the importance of their work, there is no reason to believe that the employees at the for-profit corporations do not take their work seriously. On the other hand, it's naive to assume that donation of corporate profits would bolster the morale of employees and make them think more seriously about their duties.
To buttress this argument, the speaker would do well to provide proper data related to causes of dissatisfaction among the employees of for-profit corporations. In addition to this, the speaker should also mention how exactly corporate donations may serve to enhance the morale and productivity of the company's employees.
In summary, the argument is the result of a huge speculation in which the speaker has unduly assumed a lot of unsubstantiated evidence. Had the author taken the above mentioned factors into view, the argument would have been rendered incontrovertible. But whatever has been presented here indeed fails to provide a holistic picture to the superfluous claims being made.
