GMAT Sample Essays 2 - Job Security Essay Prompt
Written below is an example of a GMAT Essay Prompt and a sample essay:
“Job security and salary should be based on employee performance, not on years of service. Rewarding employees primarily for years of service discourages people from maintaining consistently high levels of productivity.”
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.
(No copyright infringement is intended.)
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.
Sample Essay #2:
The author asserts that job security and salary should be decided primarily by performance rather than by years of service. It is somewhat true that rewarding employees according to their performance could boost the productivity, but workers who have worked in the company for a long time can help the business from many other aspects with their experience and loyalty. In my opinion, both tenure and job performance are crucial criterion for salary and job security.
On one hand, rewarding the employees who perform well in the company can boost the moral and encourage workers to work hard in a short term. Many managers in manufacturing industry give salary to employees primarily, if not completely, according to how much works they have done. This policy gives a strong motivation to employees to produce as many products as they can. An impressive example is Chinese State Owned Companies (SOC). Before 1980's, workers' salary was strictly related to years of work in SOC, so employees just finished the basic duty and then waited for the coming year. During the 1980's, the reform of SOC changed the wage’s criterion from years of work to performance, and then the productivity and profit of SOC shifted up.
On the other hand, the effects of this policy could not stand in a long term, because of the competition among workers. After carrying out this policy, employers can find who produce less than the average, and then want to replace less effective employees, always the elder who could not compete with the younger in aspect of productivity. But because elder workers have knowledge to make process of manufacture safer and teach the younger with their experience. In a long term, the employees, who have worked in the company for many years, can hold the productivity in a consistently high level without severe competition, which cause employees exhaust their energy and enthusiasm in a short term.
In addition, rewarding employees for years of service could make them more loyal to the company. This policy can prevent workers from changing works frequently and make training for them more continuous. Furthermore, some elder workers themselves are the treasure for the company. For example, the workers, who hold the key patent of the product, are mean profit to the company, even though they do nothing to productivity.
In conclusion, whether a company should reward its employees for years of service or for their performance is a complex question, which needs a case-by-case study. We must make a balance between these two kinds of policy, and then design a payment plan according to the company's particular situation, with the criterion of not only the productivity, but also the profit and other factors in a long term.
If you want us to grade your essay, leave a comment below. If you would like an experienced tutor to give you detailed comments, you can check out this tutor.
Read more GMAT Sample Essays on our website.
“Job security and salary should be based on employee performance, not on years of service. Rewarding employees primarily for years of service discourages people from maintaining consistently high levels of productivity.”
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.
(No copyright infringement is intended.)
Leave a comment if you want us to grade your essay.
Sample Essay #1:
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.
Sample Essay #2:
The author asserts that job security and salary should be decided primarily by performance rather than by years of service. It is somewhat true that rewarding employees according to their performance could boost the productivity, but workers who have worked in the company for a long time can help the business from many other aspects with their experience and loyalty. In my opinion, both tenure and job performance are crucial criterion for salary and job security.
On one hand, rewarding the employees who perform well in the company can boost the moral and encourage workers to work hard in a short term. Many managers in manufacturing industry give salary to employees primarily, if not completely, according to how much works they have done. This policy gives a strong motivation to employees to produce as many products as they can. An impressive example is Chinese State Owned Companies (SOC). Before 1980's, workers' salary was strictly related to years of work in SOC, so employees just finished the basic duty and then waited for the coming year. During the 1980's, the reform of SOC changed the wage’s criterion from years of work to performance, and then the productivity and profit of SOC shifted up.
On the other hand, the effects of this policy could not stand in a long term, because of the competition among workers. After carrying out this policy, employers can find who produce less than the average, and then want to replace less effective employees, always the elder who could not compete with the younger in aspect of productivity. But because elder workers have knowledge to make process of manufacture safer and teach the younger with their experience. In a long term, the employees, who have worked in the company for many years, can hold the productivity in a consistently high level without severe competition, which cause employees exhaust their energy and enthusiasm in a short term.
In addition, rewarding employees for years of service could make them more loyal to the company. This policy can prevent workers from changing works frequently and make training for them more continuous. Furthermore, some elder workers themselves are the treasure for the company. For example, the workers, who hold the key patent of the product, are mean profit to the company, even though they do nothing to productivity.
In conclusion, whether a company should reward its employees for years of service or for their performance is a complex question, which needs a case-by-case study. We must make a balance between these two kinds of policy, and then design a payment plan according to the company's particular situation, with the criterion of not only the productivity, but also the profit and other factors in a long term.
If you want us to grade your essay, leave a comment below. If you would like an experienced tutor to give you detailed comments, you can check out this tutor.
Read more GMAT Sample Essays on our website.
Comments
Post a Comment