Dear GMATClub friends - please grade my AWA fourth attempt

The following appeared in a memorandum from the director of human resources to the executive officers of Company X:

“Last year, we surveyed our employees on improvements needed at Company X by having them rank, in order of importance, the issues presented in a list of possible improvements. Improved communications between employees and management was consistently ranked as the issue of highest importance by the employees who responded to the survey. As you know, we have since instituted regular communications sessions conducted by high-level management, which the employees can attend on a voluntary basis. Therefore, it is likely that most employees at Company X now feel that the improvement most needed at the company has been made.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The argument attempts to demonstrate that a single solution aimed at addressing an improvement most sought after by employees in an organisation is sufficient. The argument is flawed because it may be based on incomplete or biased survey data, the solution seeks to address ‘communication’ without defining what it is, and little detail around the solution implemented is presented.

First, we are told that a survey has been used to identify improvements felt most important by employees. It is not clear from the argument whether all employees took part in the survey or whether only a small number did. Indeed, whilst the organisation may have issued the survey to all employees it is possible few employees elected to complete the survey. A smaller sample size would call into question the validity of the survey findings. We are also told that employees were asked to rank desired improvements set out on a list. This suggests that problems not included in the survey list could fall outside of the exercise. Accordingly, the completeness and accuracy of the survey data relied on by the author could be challenged.

Second, ‘improved communication between employees and management’ was identified as the most important improvement sought by employees yet no detail about what is meant by ‘communication’ is provided. For example, it could be that employees wished for more frequent communication with management, more candid communication with management, or simply more open communication with management. It may well be a mixture of all of these. Without more detail around the nature of the employee disgruntlement it is superficial of the author to suggest the issue has been addressed by the implemented solution.

Third, the author states that ‘regular’ communication sessions between employees and high-level management has likely satisfied the employee desire for improvement. But we are not told what frequency would constitute regular; this could be weekly, monthly, or even annually. Moreover, the author fails to explain more about the nature of these sessions. For instance, it is unclear whether the sessions foster open dialogue between partipants, or whether they are one way communication events. It is possible that the presence of senior company officials (‘high-level management’) is not the most conducive to employees engagement on day to day issues. After all, the employees only sought improved communication with ‘management’ suggesting lower level company officials could be a more suitable alternative.

Overall, the author seeks to rely on possibly flawed and incomplete survey data in order to suggest that an employee concern had been addressed by a single, weakly explained solution.