“Some have argued that the salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. This, they argue, will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. What these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company.”
The question whether a company should increase an employee's salary to keep that employee satisfied at his job, is a controversial and interesting one. Some argue that satisfaction comes from receiving benefits for what they so. On the other hand, others argue that it is the love for what they do that keeps employees satisfied. I, however agree with the latter argument and I will explain my view in the up coming paragraphs.
Firstly, some employee disputes are created from a lack of monetary benefits but others are not related with those kind of benefits at all. People have a need for feeling important,according to Abraham Maslow. That need must be meet in order for an employee to perform. An employee must feel that he or she has made an important contribution to the company to feel a sense of belonging. Furthermore, relations are not improved between subordinate and superior just by increasing the subordinates salary, creating a sense of belonging and belonging and acceptance will improve the employee's self esteem, thereby bringing the company closer toward achieving its goal.
Secondly, most great managers are attracted to jobs that have big salary. They are captivated by those jobs that prove challenging to them. And after they have solved the first challenge they look forward to meeting another challenge greater than the one they already solved. Tackling problems is what keeps an employee satisfied.
Admittedly, salary increases do give employees an incentive to do better and it does prove to them that their superiors give value for their work. However, there are many people in the world who are willing to do what they love for no salary whatsoever just for the sake of doing what they love and doing so well in that endeavor.
All in All, although every person may agree that employees must be happy with their work, I argue that the incentive that motivates an employee to perform exceedingly well is the value that employee has for his or her work and receiving the acknowledgment that that employee performed well.
“Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated.”
The author of the argument made above makes a valid statement. However, the author goes to the extreme to make such a couple of statements and uses assumptions to do so without considering several factors. I therefore find that the argument is flawed and unconvincing. I will explain how the argument may be improved in the following paragraphs.
To being with, the author makes a blatant statement that any society would stagnate if new ideas are not developed, a flawed reasoning created because the author fails to consider the fact that communication can play a key role to most society's development. For example, the Ancient Egyptians, the Romans and the Abyssinians were situated around the Mediterranean Sea that enabled them to communicate with civilizations outside of their respective states and ultimately made them one of the most powerful nations of the ancient world.
Secondly, it may be true that a society must permit freedom of expression to introduce new ideas. But that may not necessarily be the case. We can take, China for an example, the people did not practice freedom of expression, yet their society continues to thrive because they are informed citizens of the world and they are encouraged to come up with new ideas.
Thirdly, the statement that all limits on freedom of expression must be eliminated in order for a society to thrive is a bit over reaching, because such freedom of expression would expose children to the negative predicament the world finds itself in. Our children are the ones who will inherit the world from us and they must be nurtured in a positive environment where they are protected from viewing, listening to and or speaking about such negative issues that happen around the world today. In order for them to become positive contributors of society, a limit of freedom of expression is needed.
To conclude, the author of the argument must consider the factors that have been stated above to strengthen his or her argument.
Thank you for your kudoses Everyone!!!
"It always seems impossible until its done."