Discuss this issue with other Syvum members in this forum.  Feel free to
   post your own points or your essays here for the benefit of others, or to
   receive feedback.

Posted at: Wed Mar 10 03:47:37 2004 (GMT)

   > Discuss this issue with other Syvum members in this forum.  Feel free to
   > post your own points or your essays here for the benefit of others, or to
   > receive feedback.
   
   Organizations should attempt to remove the large number of positions and
   salary levels that categorize employees by skill and experience because a
   flat structure is more probable to foster a congenial working environment
   within the company. I disagree with above statement for a number of reasons.
   
   
   For every job, motivation is an important factor. If organizations have to
   succeed and make a mark in this world of competition, they will have to find
   ways to reward their employees to strive to help in the growth of the
   organization. And one if the main motivating factors is money and power. The
   craving for more money and power is never ending. The promotions and salary
   hikes are one of the main goals individuals work for. 
   
   However, if the main aim for removing the positions within an organization
   and to flatten salary levels is to provide a better working environment,
   this can be achieved in other ways. Every employee could be told how
   important his work is to the organization and how he contributes to the
   company. If everyone is proud of what work he is doing, whether as a CEO or
   as a clerk, and they respect each others’ role in the organization, this
   will make the organization a better place to work. Some of the steps taken
   by some leading organizations are dropping the cabin structure and
   introduction of similar cubicles for employees of all designation, single
   cafeterias for people of every section of the hierarchy, same game rooms for
   all employees, use of first names for addressing peers rather than the use
   of words like Sir or Boss. 
   
   Hence if organizations aim to provide a better working environment for their
   employees, cutting down salary and the hierarchy is not the solution. They
   should try to look for other viable ways to this effect to bring about the
   feeling of equality.

Posted at: Mon Aug 23 10:49:19 2004 (GMT)

   > Discuss this issue with other Syvum members in this forum.  Feel free to
   > post your own points or your essays here for the benefit of others, or to
   > receive feedback.
   
      The author is of the opinion that the business always benefits from
   competition. While competiton motivates organizations to use improved
   methods, it also leads to a race to win, where organizations override ethics
   and morality. Thus, I do not completely agree with the author's opinion. 
       Imagine a world, led by few monopolists. Quality wil take a backseat,
   prices will skyrocket and customer care will become an unknown term.
   Customers will feel ill-treated and unsatisfied. Thus, the presence of lot
   of players is necessary since it leads to competition. Healthy competition
   in turn necessitates that each player innovate, improve and	add value to
   its product. 
       A classic example of this is the start of Air Deccan, a low cost carrier
   in India. This fuelled ,many players to enter the domain. Tough competition
   between companies led to improved services and reduced air fares, thereby
   enabling the middle class commoner to travel by air.This example clearly
   shows the benefits of competition to businesses.
       Competition is, however not always to the advantage. History is full of
   the cases where organizations have used illegal or immoral methods to
   achieve their success. Enron scandal that came to light in 2003 is still
   fresh in memory. 
   In order to hide bankruptcy, the top management of Enron, a huge energy
   giant, bribed the tax officials to fabricate the documents. Once this came
   out in open, Enron lost its position in the market forever.
       To conclude, I partially disagree with the author's opinion that
   competition is always advantageous to the business.

Posted at: Fri May 11 21:19:31 2007 (GMT)

   I beg to disagree with the argument provided. Organizations have different
   positions and salary levels to cater to the market and organizational need.
   Author’s assumption of a flat structure, might not work for the best
   interest of the company.
   
   All organizations work for a certain goal. Goals can be very different i.e.
   growing investment, making profit, extending service to society, protection
   of environment etc. But at the core of each organization lies a goal that
   they strive to achieve. For an organization most important tool is its
   people. Competitive and motivated people make all the difference. And it’s
   always in the best interest of the Organization to attract the best and
   brightest in the market for their cause and retain them. 
   
   Organizations have a lot of positions to differentiate the work pattern.
   There is always a difference between the roles different people play in an
   organization. Positions mainly reflect those roles. Some roles are very
   critical and some are not. If we just wipe off the positions then it would
   create confusion in the organization. By creating position we define clearly
   the reporting structure. If there is no position there won’t be possible
   to devise a suitable reporting structure which is the back bone of an
   organization. People won’t know who their supervisor is and who is in
   charge.
   
   Organizations pay their employees based on the merit and the value that they
   are creating for the organization. A CEO makes all the critical decision for
   the organization. The future of the organization depends on those crucial
   decisions. So its quite natural that CEO should be well paid as he is at the
   helm of the organization. A worker just executes the job. He does not make
   much of a value addition to the organization. So if we compare to the job of
   CEO to that of the worker, then definitely CEO should be paid more. If we
   are making a flat structure, why an employee work hard and take all those
   difficult decision but get paid same as somebody else who is not
   contributing as much. So the bottom line is there is not much incentive for
   the greater contribution of the employees.
   
   Author assumed that a flat structure would produce more congenial
   atmosphere. But in actual fact it won’t. If we abolish the positions it
   will create chaos. People would have difficulty to find direction as there
   won’t be any superior to guide them. If we make the monetary benefit flat
   for everybody it will create a lot of friction. A person making more
   contribution will end up with same incentive as the person making less
   contribution. This is a dangerous situation for the organization as the
   talent will leave the organization for greener pasture. Organization will
   lose its credibility at the end of the day.
   
   By keeping monetary separation, organizations create a more competitive
   environment. Where there is competition there is excellence. Monetary
   benefit and positions are acknowledgement for greater contribution to the
   organization.

Posted at: Fri Jul 20 08:39:46 2007 (GMT)