mnarinsky
Hello,
I'm getting a pretty consistent score (5.0 - real GMAT 1, 5.0 - real GMAT 2, 5.0 - GMAT Write 1, 4.0 - GMAT Write 2) for my AWA. I'm using a template for the argument essay (structure, phrases), thus all my essays look very similar to each other. Since I'm using the same template and getting pretty much the same consistent score, it makes me believe that there is some common flaw in my template/approach that does not allow me to get a higher score....
Thanks,
Michael
Michael, hi. Here is a GMAT Write attempt I just made for the Watchweek example. It gave me a score of 6, though I didn't really use a template. I'm a little confused as to why I received a 6 overall when my 4 individual scores were 6, 5, 5 and 5. Any thoughts? Anyway, perhaps this will help.
In order to address challenges with retention and employee advancement, Watchweek has brought on Norman Wyman, previously from Pattycake Publishing, publisher of children's book. The rationale given for this move is that Mr. Wyman's management philosophy, centered around getting employees actively involved in their work, would help Watchweek's keep employees and advance more of them from within the company. The argument provided lacks evidence is full of holes and is ultimately unconvincing.
Firstly, the company is trying to address a problem without having arrived at an understanding of its root causes. Nowhere in the report do the authors discuss why retention has gone down and why few employees are being promoted to higher management. One cannot address a problem without understanding its root causes. If in fact the root cause is understood to be that employees are insufficiently involved in their work, this fact should be mentioned as a premise. Instead, it's an assumption that is likely false, especially around advancement. Studies have shown that hiring for leadership positions from within correlates directly with the development of employee skills, which is not addressed by the company's plan. Also, the authors imply that sometime in the past retention and advancement were not issues for Watchweek. Therefore, it would be wise of Watchweek to understand if what worked well in the past could be applied to the current situation.
Secondly, the report states that the challenges faced by Watchweek are company-wide. However, the Managing Editor role does not oversee all employees. Therefore, at best, this hire would impact a subset of employees. A better approach would have been to hire someone who could impact or oversee the entire organization.
Thirdly, there is an assumption that what worked in the children's book market would work for a watch magazine. This is flawed as the children's book market is about delivering creative content, whereas Pattycake focuses on reporting watch industry news. The author provides no evidence that what worked at Pattycake will work at Watchweek. Producing children's books is more suited toward collaborative group projects than reporting on the latest industry news, technology and styles in the world of watches. Moreover, the author's fail to mention that the approach used by Mr. Wyman even impacted retention or advancement at Pattycake. The inclusion of Mr. Wyman's past results around retention and advancement would add some credibility to the decision to hire Mr. Wyman.
Fourthly, hiring someone from outside the organization for a leadership role to help address lack of advancement is paradoxical and flawed. A better approach would have been to hire someone from within for this role, thereby immediately beginning to address the advancement challenge. This alternative approach would also have the benefit that the internal hire would bring experience and knowledge of the existing culture to help turn things around.
In summary, while Watchweek claims that its decision to hire Mr. Wyman will help the company in two important ways - keeping employees and hiring from within - the report provides little evidence that this approach was well thought out or will work.