This year, despite HomeStyle's move to new office space, we have seen

The argument claims that using a using a newly developed software package for performance appraisal and feedback should rectify the problems of decline in company morale and productivity and a corresponding increase in administrative costs. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that the old software package for performance appraisal and feedback is the reason for decline in company morale and productivity as well as an increase in administrative costs. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiated in any way. There might be numerous other reasons why company morale and productivity is declining. For instance, employees might prefer the old office space more than the new one, the new office space might not have a productive environment such as a collaborative space for meetings, the new office space might utilize more energy resources which adds on to administrative costs. Clearly, the old software package for performance appraisal and feedback, which might be used only a few times throughout the year, might not be the sole reason for problems stated in the argument. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the old software package for performance appraisal and feedback was the sole reason for declining productivity and morale and increasing administrative costs.

Second, the argument claims that managers will save time by simply choosing comments from a preexisting list; then the software will automatically generate feedback for the employee. This is again a very weak statement as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between increased time available and increased employee morale and productivity or decreased administrative costs. While, any time saved does reduce administrative costs, it is not clear if lack of time is the main reason for the increased administrative costs. Also, it is not necessary that more time available results in increased productivity and morale as there might be other factors not mentioned in the argument causing decline morale and productivity, such as longer travel time to new office space. If the argument had provided evidence that lack of time is the main reason for the declining morale and productivity and increasing administrative costs, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, the author mentions the HR department of CounterBalance, reports satisfaction with the package. However, do employees of CounterBalance have a declining company morale and productivity as well and did their administrative costs increase because of the old software package? Also, with the reportedly satisfactory new software package, did the morale and productivity of Counterbalance increase? Or did it administrative costs go down? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with an impression that the claim is more wishful thinking than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore, unconvincing. The argument could be significantly strengthened if it had clearly mentioned all the relevant factors directly responsible for declining company morale and productivity and increasing administrative costs. In order to assess the merits of the claim that a new software package for performance appraisal and feedback will solve the company’s problems, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.