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 the reason for their greater motivation is the belief that their work helps to improve society. Because they believe 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 humanitarian causes, our employees’ motivation and productivity would increase substantially and our overall profits would increase as well.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
While the memorandum provides some anecdotal evidence to support its conclusion, I question the validity of the argument’s premise. First, I question the assumptions underlying this argument. The human resources director claims that employees of not-for-profits are usually more motivated than those working for for-profit corporations. However, I’m not sure this assumption is true
While it is true that many employees at not-for-profits are motivated by doing good and helping others, the motivation of employees at for-profit companies often varies. For example, employees at large corporations may be motivated by the prestige associated with working for a large company, the potential benefits or benefits that can result from working for a large company, or the potential for upward mobility. Other employees may be motivated by the wages they receive and the lifestyle improvements that can result from working at a large company. Moreover, for-profit corporations often offer employees opportunities for advancement, which can motivate employees. Therefore, the motivation of employees of for-profit companies can be quite different than that of employees of not-for-profits
The human resources director also writes that employees at not-for-profits believe their work helps to improve society. However, this premise is questionable as well. Employees at not-for-profits do the work of the organization because they believe it is the right thing to do. However, employees at for-profit companies often work for the company because they believe that working for the company can lead to career advancement, increased wages, or other benefits. Therefore, employees at for-profit companies may not necessarily believe their work will help to improve society
The human resources director also claims that employees at not-for-profits perform their duties because they believe in the cause the organization seeks to promote. However, this premise is questionable as well. Employees at not-for-profits may have little choice when it comes to the type of work they perform. For example, many not-for-profits rely on volunteers to perform vital tasks, such as fundraising or administering social services. Therefore, employees at not-for-profits may not have a great deal of input into the type of work they perform. Furthermore, employees at not-for-profits may not feel a sense of personal accomplishment for the work they perform. For example, employees at a homeless shelter may not feel a sense of personal accomplishment simply for feeding the homeless. Therefore, employees at not-for-profits may have little incentive to perform their jobs well
Although the author has provided some anecdotal evidence to support its claim that employees of not-for-profits are usually more motivated than those working for for-profit corporations, the reasoning supporting this conclusion is flawed. The human resources director assumes that employees at not-for-profits are more motivated by doing good and helping others than those working for for-profit companies. However, this assumption may not be true. The human resources director also assumes that employees at not-for-profits believe their work helps to improve society or that they believe they have control over the work they do. However, this assumption may not be true. Consequently, the author’s argument relies too heavily on flawed assumptions and anecdotal evidence to support its conclusion.