Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
18 Feb 2016, 14:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Just finished my first AWA ever and would be very appreciative of some demolishing critique! 
I finished the text pretty much exactly in 30min, and consequently the end of the middle paragraph turned out pretty badly.
Anyways here it is;
PS. Remember - no requirement to be kind.
Instructions
The following is part of a business plan being discussed at a board meeting of the Perks Company: “It is no longer cost-effective for the Perks Company to continue offering its employees a generous package of benefits and incentives year after year. In periods when national unemployment rates are low, Perks may need to offer such a package in order to attract and keep good employees, but since national unemployment rates are now high, Perks does not need to offer the same benefits and incentives. The money thus saved could be better used to replace the existing plant machinery with more technologically sophisticated equipment, or even to build an additional plant.” Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
My AWA-text
The argument is proposing the idea of canceling the current incentives programs for the employees, and allocating the invested capital to invest in equipment instead. The argument is however flawed and incomplete in several areas.
Firstly, it might be reasonable to assume that while unemployment rates were low, Perks Company’s competitors might have implemented similar incentive programmes. In that scenario, Perks Company will lose a profound key for potential employees and therefore reduce the company’s Employer Branding. Essentially they might consequently be perceived as second tier compared to their competitors. Since it is often advocated that employee loyalty is the key to customer loyalty, the potential motivational drop among Perk’s employees would be of profound importance and thus preferably avoided.
Secondly, the idea is a somewhat temporary solution. As unemployment rate tends to fluctuate, it might surely be possible the unemployment rate dropping in short time. Consequently, it might be reasonable to assume that even the advocates of the proposed idea might want to switch back to use the incentive programmes again. In the scenario described, the company will have suffered employee loss and also have bound capital in other areas which will not be able to replace back.
However, the idea proposed in the argument would at first glance theoretically increase productivity, as a result of investments in technology and equipment. The argument does however not reveal the negative sides of the capital allocation. It it not explained how the motivational decrease might affect productivity. The cancelling of the incentive programmes is essentially to be considered a pay decrease for the employees. Consequently it is fair to assume that motivation among employees will drop, which consequently affects productivity negatively. Therefore it is not clear as to how the ultimate productivity might develop.
In summary, the argument proposed an interesting idea, but does not cover essential areas of the idea. It lacks to clarify the potential advantages of the proposition as well as the negative consequences.
I finished the text pretty much exactly in 30min, and consequently the end of the middle paragraph turned out pretty badly.
Anyways here it is;
PS. Remember - no requirement to be kind.
Instructions
The following is part of a business plan being discussed at a board meeting of the Perks Company: “It is no longer cost-effective for the Perks Company to continue offering its employees a generous package of benefits and incentives year after year. In periods when national unemployment rates are low, Perks may need to offer such a package in order to attract and keep good employees, but since national unemployment rates are now high, Perks does not need to offer the same benefits and incentives. The money thus saved could be better used to replace the existing plant machinery with more technologically sophisticated equipment, or even to build an additional plant.” Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
My AWA-text
The argument is proposing the idea of canceling the current incentives programs for the employees, and allocating the invested capital to invest in equipment instead. The argument is however flawed and incomplete in several areas.
Firstly, it might be reasonable to assume that while unemployment rates were low, Perks Company’s competitors might have implemented similar incentive programmes. In that scenario, Perks Company will lose a profound key for potential employees and therefore reduce the company’s Employer Branding. Essentially they might consequently be perceived as second tier compared to their competitors. Since it is often advocated that employee loyalty is the key to customer loyalty, the potential motivational drop among Perk’s employees would be of profound importance and thus preferably avoided.
Secondly, the idea is a somewhat temporary solution. As unemployment rate tends to fluctuate, it might surely be possible the unemployment rate dropping in short time. Consequently, it might be reasonable to assume that even the advocates of the proposed idea might want to switch back to use the incentive programmes again. In the scenario described, the company will have suffered employee loss and also have bound capital in other areas which will not be able to replace back.
However, the idea proposed in the argument would at first glance theoretically increase productivity, as a result of investments in technology and equipment. The argument does however not reveal the negative sides of the capital allocation. It it not explained how the motivational decrease might affect productivity. The cancelling of the incentive programmes is essentially to be considered a pay decrease for the employees. Consequently it is fair to assume that motivation among employees will drop, which consequently affects productivity negatively. Therefore it is not clear as to how the ultimate productivity might develop.
In summary, the argument proposed an interesting idea, but does not cover essential areas of the idea. It lacks to clarify the potential advantages of the proposition as well as the negative consequences.
Moderators:
188 posts
