issue 72
"Companies should not try to improve employees' performance by giving incentives -- for example, awards or gifts. These incentives encourage negative kinds of behavior instead of encouraging a interest in doing the work well."
argument 41
The following appeared as part of an article in a trade publication.
"Stronger laws are needed to protect new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold by imitators. With such protection, manufacturers will naturally invest in the development of new home-security products and production technologies. Without stronger laws, therefore, manufacturers will cut back on investment. From this will follow a corresponding decline not only in product quality and marketability, but also in production efficiency, and thus ultimately a loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry."作者: apan 时间: 2003-4-7 10:55
The recommendation that companies shall not using incentives as a means to
improve employee's performance runs against our experiences with the business world.
1. Providing incentives is now a commonly employed managment method to encourage
employees to improve efficiency and productivity. By providing incentives, employers
instill a sense of respect and trust in employees and motivate them to take pride in
their job.
2. Without proper incentives, employees tend to show lowered desire to perform with devotion, because they feel that their devotion will not be appreciated and valued by their superiors and that they are unfairly treated.
3. To produce desirable result in employee's performance, management are well
advised to desigh the incentive strategy carefully and ensure that every employee
will be awarded properly according to their achievement in the workplace.
[此贴子已经被作者于2003-4-7 12:45:20编辑过]
作者: gladys 时间: 2003-4-7 12:42
Argument 41,
The arguer are advocating enforcing stroner laws to protect new kinds of home-
security systems from being copied and sold by imitator. The arguer reasons that
with stronger protect by law, manufacturers will automatically invest in the development
of new home-security products and production technologies. The arguer further
reaons that without stronger laws, manufacturers will reduce their investment, setting
stage for a declined product quality and marketability, as well as deteriorated production
efficiency, a trend that will ultimately lead to a loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry.
This argument is problematic for several reasons.
1. The arguement unfairly assumes that the current law is not strong enought to
protect home-security systems from being copied and sold by imitators.
2. The argument relies on the gratuitous that a stronger law is the only factor that
lead manufacturers to invest in the development of new home-security products and
production technology.
3. The arguer's prediction that without stronger law, manufacturers will cut back
on investment is also problematic.
4. Even though we granting the previous assumptions are founded, we still can not
reach the conclustion that manufacturing jobs will face great loss in the industry.
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)
