21.
According to the statement, in order to ensure high productivity, companies
should base their employees' salaries and job security solely on job performance, and
not on length of service to the company. I agree that salary increases and job security
are powerful incentives to high achievement and should generally go to those who do
the best work. However, to ensure employee productivity, companies must also reward
tenured employees with cost-of-living raises—though not with job security.
On the one hand, rewarding average job performance with large pay increases or
promises of job security is a waste of resources—for two reasons. First, complacent
employees will see no reason to become more productive. Secondly, those normally
inclined to high achievement may decide the effort isn't worthwhile when mediocre
efforts are amply compensated. Companies should, therefore, adjust their pay schedules
so that the largest salaries go to the most productive employees.
On the other hand, employees who perform their jobs satisfactorily should be
given regular, though small, service-based pay increases—also for two reasons. First,
the cost of living is steadily rising, so on the principle of fair compensation alone, it is
unjust to condemn loyal employees to de facto salary reductions by refusing them cost-
of-living raises. Secondly, failure to adjust salaries to reflect the cost of living may be
counterproductive for the firm, which will have difficulty attracting and retaining good
employees without such a policy.
In the final analysis, the statement correctly identifies job performance as the
single best criterion for salary and job security. However, the statement goes too far; it
ignores the fact that a cost-of-living salary increase for tenured employees not only
enhances loyalty and, in the end, productivity, but also is required by fairness.
22.
The speaker here argues that government must support the arts but at the same
time impose no control over what art is produced. The implicit rationale for government
intervention in the arts is that, without it, cultural decline and erosion of our social
fabric will result. However, I find no empirical evidence to support this argument, which
in any event is unconvincing in light of more persuasive arguments that government
should play no part in either supporting or restricting the arts.
First, subsidizing the arts is neither a proper nor a necessary job for government.
Although public health is generally viewed as critical to a society's very survival and
therefore an appropriate concern of government, this concern should not extend
tenuously to our cultural "health" or well being. A lack of private funding might justify
an exception; in my observation, however, philanthropy is alive and well today,
especially among the new technology and media moguls.
Second, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as arts patron.
Inadequate resources call for restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is unconscionable to
relegate normative decisions as to which art has "value" to a few legislators and jurists,
who may be unenlightened in their notions about art. Also, legislators are all too likely
to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of those lobbyists with the most money
and influence.
Third, restricting artistic expression may in some cases encroach upon the
constitutional right of free expression. In any case, governmental restriction may chill
creativity, thereby defeating the very purpose of subsidizing the arts.
In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically or economically justify
its involvement in the arts, either by subsidy or sanction. Responsibility lies with
individuals to determine what art has value and to support that art.
23.
The speaker asserts that schools should teach only academic skills, and not ethical
or social values. I agree with the speaker insofar as instruction on certain moral issues is
best left to parents and churches. However, in my view it is in the best interests of a
democratic society for schools to teach at least the values necessary to preserve freedom
and a democratic way of life, and perhaps ever) additional values that enrich and nurture
a society and its members.
We all have in interest in preserving our freedom and democratic way of life- At
the very least, then, schools should provide instruction in the ethical and social values
required for our democracy to survive—particularly the values of respect and tolerance.
Respect for individual persons is a basic ethical value that requires us to acknowledge
the fundamental equality of all people, a tenet of a democratic society. Tolerance of
differences among individuals and their viewpoints is required to actualize many of our
basic constitutional rights—including life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and freedom of
speech and religion.
While respect and tolerance are the minimal values that schools should teach, the
list should ideally go further—to include caring, compassion, and willingness to help
one another. A democracy might survive without these values, but it would not thrive.
Respect and tolerance without compassion, it seems to me, breed a cool aloofness that
undermines our humanity, and leaves those in the worst position to suffer more and
suffer alone—an unhealthy state for any society.
Admittedly, schools should avoid advocating particular viewpoints on
controversial moral issues such as abortion or capital punishment. Instruction on issues
with clear spiritual or religious implications is best left to parents and churches. Even so,
schools should teach students how to approach these kinds of issues—by helping
students to recognize their complexity and to clarify competing points of view. In doing
so, schools can help breed citizens who approach controversy in the rational and
responsible ways characteristic of a healthy democracy.
In sum, schools should by all means refrain from indoctrinating our young people
with particular viewpoint on controversial questions of morality. However, it is in a
democratic society's interest for schools to inculcate the democratic values of respect
and tolerance, and perhaps even additional values that humanize and enrich a society.
24.
Historical examples of both influential public officials and influential business
leaders abound. However, the power of the modern-era business leader is quite different
from that of the government official. On balance, the CEO seems to be better positioned
to influence the course of community and of nations.
Admittedly the opportunities for the legislator to regulate commerce or of the
jurist to dictate rules of equity are official and immediate. No private individual can
hold that brand of influence. Yet official power is tempered by our check-and-balance
system of government and, in the case of legislators, by the voting power of the
electorate. Our business leaders are not so constrained, so, their opportunities far exceed
those of any public official. Moreover, powerful business leaders all too often seem to
hold de facto legislative and judicial power by way of their direct influence over public
officials, as the Clinton Administration's fund-raising scandal of 1997 illuminated all
too well.
The industrial and technological eras have bred such moguls of capitalism as
Pullman, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Gates, who by the nature of their industries and
their business savvy, not by force of law, have transformed our economy, the nature of
work, and our very day-to-day existence. Of course, many modern-day public servants
have made the most of their opportunities—for example, the crime-busting mayor
Rudolph Giuliani and the new-dealing President Franklin Roosevelt. Yet their impact
seems to pale next to those of our modern captains of industry.
In sum, modem business leaders by virtue of the far-reaching impact of their
industries and of their freedom from external constraints, have supplanted lawmakers as
the great opportunists of the world and prime movers of society.
25.
Is the most effective management approach to hire the best people, then to give
them as much autonomy as possible to serve the firm's goals? This strategy would
certainly enhance an employee's sense of involvement, purpose and personal worth. It
would also benefit the firm by encouraging employees to work creatively and
productively. But the strategy requires two constraints to operative effectively.
First, the strategy must be constrained .by strong leadership that provides clear
vision and direction. Simply putting the most capable people together, and letting them
loose on projects will provide neither. Thinking so involves the mistaken assumption
that just because the parts of a whole are good, the collection of the parts into a whole
will be equally good. Business organizations are more than just the sums of their
excellent parts; to be similarly excellent, the organization must also be unified and
cohesive. And it is strong and visionary leadership that provides these two ingredients.
Second, the strategy must be constrained by an organizational structure that brings
all individual efforts together as a coherent whole. Of course, structure can be crippling
heavily layered, overly bureaucratic organizations probably stifle more creative
productivity than they inspire. Still, individuals will be capable at some things and not
others, so some organization of efforts is always called for. The moderate—and perhaps
optimal—approach would be to create a structure that gives individuals some authority
across areas relating to their field of expertise, while reserving final authority for higher-
level managers. For example, no individual in a finance department should have much
authority over a design department. However, within the design department, individual
researchers, artists, drafters, and engineers can all contribute meaningfully to one
another's projects, and a flexible organizational structure would allow them to do so.
In sum, the advice to hire the best people and give them wide authority requires
modification. Hiring capable people and granting them some concurrent authority
across areas related to their expertise is better advice. Moreover, solid leadership and a
cohesive organizational structure are prerequisites—both are needed to coordinate
individual efforts toward the accomplishment of common goals.
26.
In retail, or "storefront," business, location is still a key ingredient of business
success. The extent to which this will continue to be true, given the inexorable growth
of Internet commerce, will vary among industries.
In more traditional retail sectors, such as clothing, cosmetics, and home
improvement, an in-person visit to a retail store is often necessary—to try on clothes for
fit, compare fragrances, or browse among a full selection of textures, colors, and styles.
Also, activities such as shopping and dining out are for many consumers enjoyable
experiences in themselves, as well as excuses to get out of the house and mingle with
others in their community. Finally, shipping costs for large items such as appliances and
home-improvement items render home shopping impracticable. Thus, burgeoning
technologies pose no serious threat to Main Street, and location will continue to play a
pivotal role in the fate of many retail businesses.
Nevertheless, technology-related industries are sure to move away from physical
storefronts to virtual ones. Products that can be reduced to digital "bits and bites," such
as books and magazines, recordings, and software applications, are more efficiently
distributed electronically. Computer hardware will not disappear from Main Street quite
so quickly, though, since its physical look and feel enters into the buying decision.
Computer superstores should continue to thrive alongside companies such as Dell,
which does not distribute through retail stores.
In conclusion, consumer demand for convenient location will continue with
respect to certain tangible products, while for other products alternative distribution
systems will gradually replace the storefront, rendering location an obsolete issue.-
27.
I agree that job satisfaction is an important factor in determining whether a
company will be successful in the long term. However, other factors typically play just
as vital a role in the ultimate success or failure of a business. At the same time, job
security is becoming decidedly unimportant for many employees and, in any event,
often leads to substandard job performance.
I agree that business success is more likely when employees feel satisfied with
their lobs. Employees who dislike the workplace or their jobs are not likely to reach
their potential performance levels; they may tend to arrive late for work, perform their
tasks in an unimaginative and sluggish manner, or take excessive sick leaves.
Nevertheless, a firm's long-term success may equally result from other factors such as
finding a market niche for products, securing a reputation for quality products and
services, or forming a synergistic alliance with a competitor. This list hardly exhausts all
the factors that can contribute to a firm's ultimate success, and no one of them—
including job satisfaction—is pivotal in every case.
While job satisfaction clearly boosts employee morale and contributes to the
overall success of a company, the same cannot be said for job security. Admittedly an
employee worried about how secure his or her job is might be less creative or
productive as a result. By the same token, however, too much confidence in the security
of one's job can foster complacency, which, in turn, may diminish employees' creativity
and productivity. Moreover, many employees actually place job security relatively low
on the list of what they want in a job. In fact, more and more workers today are
positively uninterested in long-term job security; instead, they are joining firms for the
sole purpose of accomplishing near-term professional goals, then leaving to face the
next challenge.
To sum up, the claim at issue overrates the importance of job satisfaction and
security by identifying them as the key factors in a company's long-term success. Job
satisfaction among employees is very important, but it is not clearly more important
than many other factors. At the same time, job security is clearly less important, and
even unimportant in some cases.
28.
This argument is untenable for two reasons. First, the claim that high-quality ads
are used to promote tow-quality products is unsupported empirically and by common
sense. Second, undue attention by schools to consumerism is unnecessary and
inappropriate, especially for younger students.
Regarding the first reason, empirical evidence does not suggest that high-quality
advertising is used to promote low-quality products. To the contrary, companies that
produce low-quality products seem to resort to low-budget, poor-quality ads, especially
in broadcast media. Firms that take pride in the quality of their products are far more
likely also to produce ads they can be proud of. Furthermore, high-quality products are
more likely to succeed in the marketplace and thereby generate the revenues needed to
ensure high production value in advertising.
As for the second reason, it is not the job of our schools to breed legions of smart
shoppers. Teachers should devote class time to examining the market place of ideas, no
that of consumer goods and services, which students spend sufficient time examining
outside the classroom. Admittedly consumerism and advertising may be appropriate
topics for college-level marketing and psychology courses. However, "undue focus on
media and materialism may give younger students a distortedly harrow view of the
world as little more than a flea market. Additionally, revealing the deceptive side of the
advertising business may breed unhealthy cynicism among youngsters, who need
positive messages, not negative ones, during their formative years.
In sum, the premise that high-quality ads tout low-quality products is specious at
best; in any event, for schools to provide extensive training in consumerism would be to
assign them an inappropriate role and to foster in impressionable minds a distortedly
narrow and unhealthy view of the world.
29.
This advice means fundamentally that if we focus our attention on the details of a
project rather than on the end product, the result will be better than if we proceed the
other way around. Admittedly, this advice has some merit; by focusing on the details at
hand one is less likely to become discouraged by the daunting or overwhelming tasks
ahead in an ambitious project. Otherwise, however, I think this advice is poor,
The central problem with this advice is that focusing attention completely on the
task at hand without reference to how that task is related to the end product would be
virtually impossible to do. The reason for this is simple. Without some reference to a
goal or a result we would have no idea of what task to perform in the first place. As a
result, the various tasks we engage in would be somewhat random and, in turn, no
matter how diligent and careful we were in performing them the likelihood of producing
worthwhile or successful end products would be minimal.
To ensure good results, one should instead take a balanced approach to the task at
hand. By a balanced approach I mean paying attention to both the desired result and the
specific tasks that are required to achieve it. House building provides a good example of
this approach. The house plan not only contains a rendering of the finished product but
also contains detailed drawings and descriptions of each of the specific components
required to ensure a successful result. Moreover, the order of the tasks is determined
with reference to this result. In my estimation, virtually all successful projects proceed
in the fashion illustrated in this example.
In sum, I don't think that the advice offered in the statement is worth following. In
my view, following this advice is more likely to produce unsuccessful results than
successful ones.
30.
According to this statement, companies would be well advised to discourage
employees from working overtime or from taking projects home, since employees are
more productive when they return to the job after a break from their work. While I agree
with this policy in general, on some occasions the company stands to benefit more from
asking employees to forego leisure time than from insisting they be rested and refreshed
when they come to work.
In the normal course of business operations, companies benefit when they
discourage employees from putting in long hours or from taking work home. Breaks
from work provide opportunities to enjoy outside interests and activities, and to spend
important time with friends and family. Employees who make time for relationships and
leisure activities will find that they return to the job refreshed and with new perspectives
on the challenges they face at work. Both of these factors contribute to clearer focus on
the task at hand and greater efficiency.
At the same time, every organization is familiar with the press of crucial deadlines
and other crisis situations. At such times a company should call upon employees to
work overtime, and even to take projects home, especially when doing so might make
the difference between the business' success or failure. Moreover, it is in the company's
best interest to reward the devoted worker accordingly—not in order to encourage
workaholic habits but rather to foster good will and loyalty.
In sum, I agree that encouraging employees to make a habit of working after hours
or taking work home is generally counterproductive for an enterprise. Nevertheless, in
exceptional situations, especially where the company is at great risk, calling on
employees to forego their ordinary schedules and to work overtime is well justified.
