AWA-Argument 2

AWA-Argument 2
The following appeared in a memorandum from the head of a human resources department at a major automobile manufacturing company to the company’s managers:
“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 employees of not-for-profit organizations suggest that in the importance of their work, 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 overall profits would increase as well.”
Discuss how well-reasoned.
The memorandum from the head of a human resources department concludes 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. Thus, companies are encouraged to donate portion of its revenue to the society.
First of all, the credibility of the studies is questionable because the memorandum fails to provide sufficient information on their source. If people do not trust the validity of the studies, the suggestions offered by these studies will lack credibility and be meaningless. For example, if these studies were established on the basis of single company or small organization, how would them sound logically convincing in this fast-changing industry.
Secondly, corporations donate certain amount of money might motivate employees to perform well at work, thereby enhancing companies’ production. However, there is no guarantee that this is always the case because financial aids might be very appealing as well. If a employee have a big family to take care with, a nice car to buy, and perhaps a sweet house to purchase, wouldn’t financial aids sound more helpful to him? Therefore, i believe not-for-profit organizations and for-profit corporations are equally important.
Finally, high motivation and productivity does not necessarily lead to high profit. Besides, the memorandum failed to take into account some other factors that influence the profit such as a good control system, a cost cutting strategy, and a well-functioned equipment.
In conclusion, the studies lack credibility because the evidence cited is not sufficient to be the foundation for the causal relationship that the memorandum claim to be true. The head of a human resources department need to provide statistical evidence, such as a listing of all corporations in these studies where direct cause and effect exists. Without statistical evidence that directly shows high motivation leads to high profit, the argument in the memorandum would be without merit and logically unsound.