“People are likely to accept as a leader only someone who has demonstrated an ability to perform the same tasks that he or she expects others to perform.”Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
-----------------------------------------------------------
2 samples
Andrew's Writing:Are people likely to accept as a leader only someone who has demonstrated the capability of performing the same tasks that he or she anticipates others to perform ? At least not for me. That is, I do not agree with such an broad conclusion the speaker makes. For some people, a competent leader who can perform the same task is perhaps more convincing. However, according to my observation, most people follow the direction of someone if he or she is proved to be talented and persuasive in that field. He or she doesn't neccessarily have to have the ability to do the same thing.Admittedly, we can learn a lot from those who have already done the same task. A student is more likely to learn from the teacher who has good knowledge rather than from someone ameture. When someone wants to learn to dance, he or she expects the instructor to be a once dance champion in some competition. Even the couches for most sports teams were once excellent players. As evidence shows that some past Olympic gold medal winners become couches in the field that he once performed very well.However, the history abounds with more examples to demonstrate the opposite. During the World War II, Churchhill, the prime minister of United Kingdom, led his country to fight the war and was the great leader in the eyes of his citizens. The soldiers of his country listened to their leaders' commands not because the task those leaders once performed in the battle filed, but because the leadership charisma that inspired people through the speaking. Hitler, the dictator, was accepted as a German hero because his exagerating speeches that fooled his people, rather than any task he had once done. The best examples can be found among the movie industries nowadays. Many movie directors, such as Spielberg or Ang Lee, were accepted as great leaders in that field absolutely not because they are also good actors. Instead, it is because the directors' sense or creative ideas toward the art of movie. Their talents on directing, not performing, persuaves the actors or actresses to follow the directors' commands.In sum, people are more likely to accept as leader someone who shows the leadership charisma. The charisma can be demonstrated through speeches, through the prestige, or even through the media that promotes someone's image easily. The ability to perform the task in the same field is not the most critical.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Essay:
People are more likely to accept the leadership of those who have shown they can perform the same tasks they require of others. My reasons for this view involve the notions of respect and trust.It is difficult for people to fully respect a leader who cannot, or will not, do what he or she asks of others. President Clinton’s difficulty in his role as Commander-in-Chief serves as a fitting and very public example. When Clinton assumed this leadership position, it was well known that he had evaded military service during the Vietnam conflict. Military leaders and lower-level personnel alike made it clear that they did not respect his leadership as a result. Contrast the Clinton case with that of a business leader such as John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems, who by way of his training and experience as a computer engineer earned the respect of his employees.It is likewise difficult to trust leaders who do not have experience in the areas under their leadership. The Clinton example illustrates this point as well. Because President Clinton lacked military experience, people in the armed forces found it difficult to trust that his policies would reflect any understanding of their interests or needs. And when put to the test, he undermined their trust to an even greater extent with his naive and largely bungled attempt to solve the problem of gays in the military. In stark contrast, President Dwight Eisenhower inspired nearly devotional trust as well as respect because of his role as a military hero in World War II.In conclusion, it will always be difficult for people to accept leaders who lack demonstrated ability in the areas under their leadership. Initially, such leaders will be regarded as outsiders, and treated accordingly. Moreover, some may never achieve the insider status that inspires respect and trust from those they hope to lead.
Sunday, 15 June 2008
Sunday, 30 March 2008
Issue 2 - Flat Organisations
The issue of a flat versus a hierarchical corporation or business is controversial. On one hand eliminating ranks and grades to classify employees encourages collegiality and cooperation, on the other hand it reduces career incentives and accountability. I feel that a hierarchical structure is applicable in more situations than a flat one. However, we need to look at both sides of the issue here.
Firstly, a hierarchical organization is more capable of rewarding employees with regard to their experience and expertise. In several corporations the nature of work is such that more senior people gain more knowledge through experience and become more capable in handling various problems and issues. Expertise and experience go hand in hand. An organization typically rewards such people with a higher designation and better paychecks as recognition of their expertise. An organizations promotion policy is an example. Rewarding an expert becomes a more complex problem in flat organizational structure and could lead to a lot of experts leaving as their seniority and work is not recognized.
Secondly, a reporting hierarchy in an organization improves accountability. If ones work is monitored and reviewed by a person of higher rank, then one is naturally more responsible towards the desired goals. For example, the number of bugs detected in the code of each Software Engineer in a team is monitored by the project manager. The manager then appraises each engineer on the basis of the quality of code developed. The project manager should naturally have more power, or a higher rank in the organization. It is not possible to implement this in a flat structure.
Thirdly, I agree that a flat structure encourages collegiality and cooperation among employees. But I think that these traits are desirable only to certain types of corporations. For example, in a research facility, it is best if all scientists cooperate and share their knowledge and research with each other, and achieve the objectives fastest. In general however, a competitive environment serves most organizations better. For example, in a car design firm it is best to have a hierarchy of engineers based on the degree of their expertise. Competition will motivate people to learn faster and contribute more.
Finally, I conclude that in general a hierarchical structure is more aligned to an organization’s objectives, than a flat one. However, both have their pros and cons. The structure should best suit the nature of the organization and organizational objectives.
Firstly, a hierarchical organization is more capable of rewarding employees with regard to their experience and expertise. In several corporations the nature of work is such that more senior people gain more knowledge through experience and become more capable in handling various problems and issues. Expertise and experience go hand in hand. An organization typically rewards such people with a higher designation and better paychecks as recognition of their expertise. An organizations promotion policy is an example. Rewarding an expert becomes a more complex problem in flat organizational structure and could lead to a lot of experts leaving as their seniority and work is not recognized.
Secondly, a reporting hierarchy in an organization improves accountability. If ones work is monitored and reviewed by a person of higher rank, then one is naturally more responsible towards the desired goals. For example, the number of bugs detected in the code of each Software Engineer in a team is monitored by the project manager. The manager then appraises each engineer on the basis of the quality of code developed. The project manager should naturally have more power, or a higher rank in the organization. It is not possible to implement this in a flat structure.
Thirdly, I agree that a flat structure encourages collegiality and cooperation among employees. But I think that these traits are desirable only to certain types of corporations. For example, in a research facility, it is best if all scientists cooperate and share their knowledge and research with each other, and achieve the objectives fastest. In general however, a competitive environment serves most organizations better. For example, in a car design firm it is best to have a hierarchy of engineers based on the degree of their expertise. Competition will motivate people to learn faster and contribute more.
Finally, I conclude that in general a hierarchical structure is more aligned to an organization’s objectives, than a flat one. However, both have their pros and cons. The structure should best suit the nature of the organization and organizational objectives.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Issue 2 - Energy Conservation Sample
“It is unrealistic to expect individual nations to make, independently, the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy. International leadership and worldwide cooperation are essential if we expect to protect the world’s energy resources for future generations.” Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
The statement asserts that international leadership in energy conservation is required for the world’s energy resources to be conserved for future generations and that individual nations are unable to do this on their own. I disagree with this statement. Firstly, individual nations have been driven to adopt energy conservation initiatives without international leadership; they will be motivated to do this simply to preserve energy for the benefit of their nation. Furthermore, often international leadership and worldwide cooperation fail to influence the entire world to conserve energy. Therefore, it is not unrealistic for individual nations to make sacrifices to conserve energy, and international leadership and worldwide cooperation is not always required.
Factors other than international leadership or world cooperation have driven individual nations to conserve energy. For example, most nations in Europe develop and use automobiles that are highly energy efficient. This is not the case worldwide. Such nations are motivated to conserve energy purely for the benefit of their own nation as they recognize that the earth’s resources are limited and must be conserved for future generations. Energy efficient transport in such nations is not just limited to automobiles but public transport as well. The governments and society in these individual nations have chosen to find ways to conserve energy, which proves that it is not unrealistic to expect the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy.
Although the goals of international energy conservations and other environmental initiatives are to encourage all nations of the world to conserve the earth’s resources, they often fail in reaching their objectives. For example, the Kyoto treaty was designed to reduce the world’s green house emissions and many countries have signed this treaty. However, the United States refuses to enter the treaty as it believes that following the Kyoto protocol will have negative ramifications on the economy due to loss of jobs and other consequences. In turn, Australia refuses to sign the treaty unless all developed nations are involved, its view being that it will be unable to remain competitive if its energy consumption is limited whilst its competitors will not have such impositions placed on them. McDonalds is an example of a food chain, with franchises in many countries that strives to conserve energy. It has adopted the use of energy saving lights and has tested, only in the United States, 5 advanced energy saving restaurants. Although, this is a great accomplishment for energy conservation, this has not led franchises within other countries to follow suit. These examples show how international leadership is not always able to induce the nations of the world to conserve energy.
In conclusion, it is not unrealistic to expect individual nations to make the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy. Furthermore, international leadership and worldwide cooperation that aims to promote energy conservation does not always succeed in finding support from all nations of the world. Therefore such initiatives cannot be relied upon to persuade individual nations to conserve energy and that it still possible to achieve energy conservation without international leadership.
The statement asserts that international leadership in energy conservation is required for the world’s energy resources to be conserved for future generations and that individual nations are unable to do this on their own. I disagree with this statement. Firstly, individual nations have been driven to adopt energy conservation initiatives without international leadership; they will be motivated to do this simply to preserve energy for the benefit of their nation. Furthermore, often international leadership and worldwide cooperation fail to influence the entire world to conserve energy. Therefore, it is not unrealistic for individual nations to make sacrifices to conserve energy, and international leadership and worldwide cooperation is not always required.
Factors other than international leadership or world cooperation have driven individual nations to conserve energy. For example, most nations in Europe develop and use automobiles that are highly energy efficient. This is not the case worldwide. Such nations are motivated to conserve energy purely for the benefit of their own nation as they recognize that the earth’s resources are limited and must be conserved for future generations. Energy efficient transport in such nations is not just limited to automobiles but public transport as well. The governments and society in these individual nations have chosen to find ways to conserve energy, which proves that it is not unrealistic to expect the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy.
Although the goals of international energy conservations and other environmental initiatives are to encourage all nations of the world to conserve the earth’s resources, they often fail in reaching their objectives. For example, the Kyoto treaty was designed to reduce the world’s green house emissions and many countries have signed this treaty. However, the United States refuses to enter the treaty as it believes that following the Kyoto protocol will have negative ramifications on the economy due to loss of jobs and other consequences. In turn, Australia refuses to sign the treaty unless all developed nations are involved, its view being that it will be unable to remain competitive if its energy consumption is limited whilst its competitors will not have such impositions placed on them. McDonalds is an example of a food chain, with franchises in many countries that strives to conserve energy. It has adopted the use of energy saving lights and has tested, only in the United States, 5 advanced energy saving restaurants. Although, this is a great accomplishment for energy conservation, this has not led franchises within other countries to follow suit. These examples show how international leadership is not always able to induce the nations of the world to conserve energy.
In conclusion, it is not unrealistic to expect individual nations to make the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy. Furthermore, international leadership and worldwide cooperation that aims to promote energy conservation does not always succeed in finding support from all nations of the world. Therefore such initiatives cannot be relied upon to persuade individual nations to conserve energy and that it still possible to achieve energy conservation without international leadership.
Issue 3 - Organizational Structures Sample 2
“Corporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise. A ‘flat’ organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees.” Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
The speaker here claims that a flat organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality among employees. I disagree with the statement. In support of my position, I would like to present following aspects that constitute to an organizational operating.
First, this statement ignores our daily experience in workplace. When there is dispute among coworkers, there should be a clear figure to take authority and to make final decision. If not, disagreement will go unresolved and the congeniality is discouraged.
Second, under a flat system, workers have little enticement, if any, to improve their performance and bear responsibility for their assigned tasks. In fact, a flat system might actually discourage productivity and efficiency because workers are not responsible for the quality or quantity of their work.
In sum, I disagree the opinion that a "flat" organizational structure is more likely to promote collegiality and cooperation among employees because it breaks the common sense about how people work and it discourage the cooperation among employees.
The speaker here claims that a flat organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality among employees. I disagree with the statement. In support of my position, I would like to present following aspects that constitute to an organizational operating.
First, this statement ignores our daily experience in workplace. When there is dispute among coworkers, there should be a clear figure to take authority and to make final decision. If not, disagreement will go unresolved and the congeniality is discouraged.
Second, under a flat system, workers have little enticement, if any, to improve their performance and bear responsibility for their assigned tasks. In fact, a flat system might actually discourage productivity and efficiency because workers are not responsible for the quality or quantity of their work.
In sum, I disagree the opinion that a "flat" organizational structure is more likely to promote collegiality and cooperation among employees because it breaks the common sense about how people work and it discourage the cooperation among employees.
Issue 3 - Organizational Structures Sample
Organizational Structures
"Corporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to ther experience and expertise. A 'flat' organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees"
Management experts all over the world will agree that one of the most discussed issues is how to structure the business so as to encourage collegiality and coorporation among the employees. Employees form the backbone of any organisation and it is only by making them happy can a company derive the maximum output from them.
The main question that needs to be answered is what is it that drives a person to give his best. Everyone has motivation levels which are quite different. But organisations that treats its employees so that they feel rewarded for the level of work that they have done over the years and acknowledge the contributions they have made are the ones that get the most out of their employees.
Growth is essential to any organisation and for that, it is necessary to move the experienced people up the ladder, give them better pays and benefits for the work they have done so far.
This is the reason behind appraisals and promotions. It is not possible to manage and delegate tasks unless there is a clearly defined structure in place. Pay packets form a materialistic way of motivating people to achieve more.
Take the case of Wal-Mart. The company has so many levels of positions, starting from the shop assistants to department managers to store managers and so on. Sam Walton made it a point to structure the benefits package in such a way that an employee who stayed on at Wal-Mart ultimately reaped the benefits of loyalty.
Much as it would seem that a 'flat' organization would promote cooperation, that is not necessarily true.
"Corporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to ther experience and expertise. A 'flat' organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees"
Management experts all over the world will agree that one of the most discussed issues is how to structure the business so as to encourage collegiality and coorporation among the employees. Employees form the backbone of any organisation and it is only by making them happy can a company derive the maximum output from them.
The main question that needs to be answered is what is it that drives a person to give his best. Everyone has motivation levels which are quite different. But organisations that treats its employees so that they feel rewarded for the level of work that they have done over the years and acknowledge the contributions they have made are the ones that get the most out of their employees.
Growth is essential to any organisation and for that, it is necessary to move the experienced people up the ladder, give them better pays and benefits for the work they have done so far.
This is the reason behind appraisals and promotions. It is not possible to manage and delegate tasks unless there is a clearly defined structure in place. Pay packets form a materialistic way of motivating people to achieve more.
Take the case of Wal-Mart. The company has so many levels of positions, starting from the shop assistants to department managers to store managers and so on. Sam Walton made it a point to structure the benefits package in such a way that an employee who stayed on at Wal-Mart ultimately reaped the benefits of loyalty.
Much as it would seem that a 'flat' organization would promote cooperation, that is not necessarily true.
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
Issue 1 - Television Censorship Sample
In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship.
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.
1. The extent to which the broadcast media should be censored for offensive
language and behavior involves a conflict between our right of free speech and the duty
of the government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. In my view, our societal
interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence
over the rights of individuals to broadcast this type of content.
First of all, I believe that exposure to obscene and offensive language and
behavior does indeed cause similar behavior on the part of those who are exposed to it.
Although we may not have conclusive scientific evidence of a cause-effect relationship,
ample anecdotal evidence establishes a significant correlation. Moreover, both common
sense and our experiences with children inform us that people tend to mimic the
language and behavior they are exposed to.
Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is indeed harmful to a
society. The harm it produces is, in my view, both palpable and profound. For the
individual, it has a debasing impact on vital human relationships; for the society, it
promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. Both outcomes, in turn,
tear apart the social fabric that holds a society together.
Those who advocate unbridled individual expression might point out that the right
of free speech is intrinsic to a democracy and necessary to its survival. Even so, this
right is not absolute, nor is it the most critical element. In my assessment, the interests
served by restricting obscenity in broadcast media are, on balance, more crucial to the
survival of a society. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in
defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But in my view, however
difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is worthwhile.
In sum, it is in our best interest as a society for the government to censor
broadcast media for obscene and offensive language and behavior. Exposure to such
media content tends to harm society and its citizenry in ways that are worth preventing,
even in light of the resulting infringement of our right of free expression.
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.
1. The extent to which the broadcast media should be censored for offensive
language and behavior involves a conflict between our right of free speech and the duty
of the government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. In my view, our societal
interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence
over the rights of individuals to broadcast this type of content.
First of all, I believe that exposure to obscene and offensive language and
behavior does indeed cause similar behavior on the part of those who are exposed to it.
Although we may not have conclusive scientific evidence of a cause-effect relationship,
ample anecdotal evidence establishes a significant correlation. Moreover, both common
sense and our experiences with children inform us that people tend to mimic the
language and behavior they are exposed to.
Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is indeed harmful to a
society. The harm it produces is, in my view, both palpable and profound. For the
individual, it has a debasing impact on vital human relationships; for the society, it
promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. Both outcomes, in turn,
tear apart the social fabric that holds a society together.
Those who advocate unbridled individual expression might point out that the right
of free speech is intrinsic to a democracy and necessary to its survival. Even so, this
right is not absolute, nor is it the most critical element. In my assessment, the interests
served by restricting obscenity in broadcast media are, on balance, more crucial to the
survival of a society. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in
defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But in my view, however
difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is worthwhile.
In sum, it is in our best interest as a society for the government to censor
broadcast media for obscene and offensive language and behavior. Exposure to such
media content tends to harm society and its citizenry in ways that are worth preventing,
even in light of the resulting infringement of our right of free expression.
Saturday, 8 September 2007
Issue 1 - Television Censorship
“In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In
other countries, there is little or no censorship.”
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs?
Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.
The issue concerning the extent of government’s ability to censor offensive material on TV and radio is controversial. On one hand there is a concern about freedom of the press and the freedom of the people, who have a right to see the un-distorted picture. On the other hand we need to protect society, our children and various communities. I believe that in a democratic society the government must have a broad range of tools to control offensive material from being published freely.
The primary reason for my belief is that we need to protect our children. Children usually have free access to TV and radio. In today’s world these media exert considerable influence on their innocent minds. It is inappropriate to expose them to uncensored offensive material. In extreme cases this may lead to disastrous consequences. For example, there have been shootouts in schools where little children, influenced by violence on TV, have shot and killed their teachers and fellow students.
The second reason is that offensive material can hurt people’s sentiments. In a democratic society that is tolerant to various cultures, religions and communities, the publishing of material that is insulting or deprecating to one group of people is unacceptable. It can also be dangerous and spark reactions. For example, the Danish media published certain cartoons ridiculing Prophet Mohammed. This caused an outrage in the Muslim community and a violent backlash followed. The government must have the necessary tools to prevent such incidents.
Some people may cite that allowing government control over the content in media restricts freedom of the press and of the people. The government may forward its own propaganda and distort the true picture of things. However others argue that in a democratic society such risks are minimal. Especially, if mechanisms are carefully designed to grant the government powers to restrict or moderate content only if it is proven offensive.
In sum I concur that in certain ways freedoms of the people and press are restricted by government censorship of TV and radio content. However, in today’s world where the reach of media is far and wide and more influential than ever, protecting our society and little ones is important. It is necessary for the government to able to censor offensive material on TV and Radio.
other countries, there is little or no censorship.”
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs?
Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.
The issue concerning the extent of government’s ability to censor offensive material on TV and radio is controversial. On one hand there is a concern about freedom of the press and the freedom of the people, who have a right to see the un-distorted picture. On the other hand we need to protect society, our children and various communities. I believe that in a democratic society the government must have a broad range of tools to control offensive material from being published freely.
The primary reason for my belief is that we need to protect our children. Children usually have free access to TV and radio. In today’s world these media exert considerable influence on their innocent minds. It is inappropriate to expose them to uncensored offensive material. In extreme cases this may lead to disastrous consequences. For example, there have been shootouts in schools where little children, influenced by violence on TV, have shot and killed their teachers and fellow students.
The second reason is that offensive material can hurt people’s sentiments. In a democratic society that is tolerant to various cultures, religions and communities, the publishing of material that is insulting or deprecating to one group of people is unacceptable. It can also be dangerous and spark reactions. For example, the Danish media published certain cartoons ridiculing Prophet Mohammed. This caused an outrage in the Muslim community and a violent backlash followed. The government must have the necessary tools to prevent such incidents.
Some people may cite that allowing government control over the content in media restricts freedom of the press and of the people. The government may forward its own propaganda and distort the true picture of things. However others argue that in a democratic society such risks are minimal. Especially, if mechanisms are carefully designed to grant the government powers to restrict or moderate content only if it is proven offensive.
In sum I concur that in certain ways freedoms of the people and press are restricted by government censorship of TV and radio content. However, in today’s world where the reach of media is far and wide and more influential than ever, protecting our society and little ones is important. It is necessary for the government to able to censor offensive material on TV and Radio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
