Free Official GMAT AWA Evaluation 3 out of 4

My response :

The argument states that "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 these employees helped us understand that their greater motivation exists because of the belief that their work helps to improve society. As they believe that the work they do is important, 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 purpose, our employees' motivation and productivity would increase substantially, and our overall profits would increase as well". Presented in this way, the argument seems incoherent as a lot of the premises, assumptions that are the building blocks here are missing, which in turn make the conclusion weak.

First, the argument states that "Studies" have found that employees of non-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, and on conducting interviews with these employees the reason for this motivation is because these employees believe in the importance of their work. Thus, they have personal reasons to perform well, even though there may not be any financial incentive provided to the employees. Now the reason provided in the interviews by the employees could be true, but it is hard to imagine that it could be the only reason that employees working for non-profit-organizations are more motivated. The other reasons could be that the working environment at the organization is conducive to their productivity, the management of the company has incorporated environment friendly policies rather than being vested only in the success of the organization. the employees may already be getting good financial benefits from the organization that any further need of financial compensation doesn't motivate them anymore. The presence of other reasons could have brought clarity to the argument and made it more airtight.

Secondly, the author of the argument goes on to say that the corporation should donate a significant portion of its profits to humanitarian purpose, the motivation of their employees will increase as well. The question that comes to my mind on reading this part of the argument is how can you compare employees of a non-for-profit organization with employees of a for-profit organizations? The working conditions are different, the motivation of the organization is different, the economic compensation would definitely be different, the policies of the not-for-profit organizations will definitely be different than the ones that exist in the for-profit corporation. If the conditions in both the organizations would have been the same then the suggestion that donating money for humanitarian purposes would improve the motivation of the employees could be considered to be spot on, but due to so many missing premises and assumptions, this argument leads a lot to be desired.

Finally, the author concludes by saying that the increase in the motivation of the employees due to the increase in humanitarian activities will lead to increased profits. But throughout the entire argument, the author has failed to mention whether the for-profit corporation is making profit to divert funds for humanitarian activities.

In summary, this argument could have easily driven the point home had it contained all the necessary assumptions, premises to make the argument air tight. In the absence of which, this argument leaves much to be desired and open to debate.