Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
“All groups and organizations should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties. Giving one person central authority and responsibility for a project or task is not an effective way to get work done.”
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Support your views with reasons and/or specific examples drawn from your own work or school experiences, your observations, or your reading.
While everyone agrees with the statement that " All groups and organizations should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties", the practical feasibility of this statement in the present day organisations calls the statement into question. Considering the other side, Giving a single person the authority and responsibility for the project is an effective way of getting the work done.
Every one's baby is no one's baby. If all groups and organisations function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares duties and responsibilities, every one acts in his own self interest and no one takes the accountability for results. This creates a hooch pooch in the organisation. More over decision making that takes views of every one into consideration causes delays. In a competitive world, such a delay may through the business out of business.
If we look at the centralized authority business, the decision making and the onus lie with a single person. This results in speedy decision making in at least key issues. However, this type of system overloads the central authority. The central authority, due to his position, has the power to get the things done.
A combination of these two systems leads to a better system. The authority and responsibility should be placed in a team of top management in which each member acts as a centralized authority for his own division. However the divisional authority makes his decision after discussion with his divisional team members. By this modification, many employees feel that their opinions are valued and the central authority feels that all the view points are considered and a right decision was made to benefit the organisation.
Analysis of Argument
The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company: “When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. Such centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the company maintain better supervision of all employees.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The conclusion that "the Apogee Company should close down its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location to improve its profitability & Supervision on employees" is based on a number of unwarranted assumptions and therefore is less convincing.
The author suggested that all the company operations be shifted to a single location. But he failed to account for the availability of resources at that location to meet the ever growing customer demands. The author did not weigh the potential benefits and costs incurred for shifting the business to a single location. A financial comparison will make the reader convinced about the argument.
The author compared the company's profitability before and after centralization. He opined that the company was more profitable before centralization. The author did not provide any statistical evidence for his claim. To strengthen his claim, author should supplement his claim by providing the financial statements of the Apogee company before and after centralization.
The author claimed that the centralization would improve the profitability by cutting costs and maintaining better supervision of all employees. He did not provide any evidence of reduced costs as to why the costs will reduce if the operations move to a single location. The author claimed that the company can improve its supervision of employees by having all its operations at a single location. But the author neither explored the possibility of improving the supervision at the present locations nor provided any evidence that the improved supervision will lead to increased profitability.
Had the author answered these questions before arriving at the conclusion, the argument would have been airtight and more convincing.