3.
Which is a better way to classify and reward employees of a business: a flat organizational structure or a hierarchical structure? The speaker prefers a flat structure in which distinctions between employees based on education or experience are not used as a basis for monetary rewards. I strongly disagree with the speakers view, for two reasons.
In the first place, the speakers preference for a flat structure is based upon the claim that cooperation and collegiality among employees is more likely under this system than under a hierarchical one. However, this claim ignores our everyday experience in human interaction. Disagreements among coworkers are inevitable. Without a clear authoritative figure to resolve them and to make final decisions, disputes are more likely to go unresolved and even worsen, thereby undermining cooperation, congeniality and, ultimately, productivity and profit.
In the second place, whether or not collegiality and cooperation are best fostered by a flat organizational structure is beside the point. My main reason for rejecting an organizational structure that does not distinguish workers in terms of their abilities or experience is that under such a system workers have little incentive to improve their skills, accomplish their work-related goals, or assume responsibility for the completion of their assigned tasks. In my experience, human motivation is such that without enticements such as money, status or recognition, few people would accomplish anything of value or assume responsibility for any task. A flat system actually might provide a distinct disincentive for productivity and efficiency insofar as workers are not held accountable for the quality or quantity of their work. By ignoring human nature, then, a company may be harming itself by encouraging laziness and complacency.
In sum, the speakers opinion that a flat organizational structure is the best way to promote collegiality and cooperation among employees runs counter to the common sense about how people act in a work environment, and in any case provides a feeble rationale for the preference of one organizational structure over another.
4.
This quote means essentially that people admire powerful individuals who do not use their power to the utmost to achieve their goals but rather use only the minimum amount required to attain them. While this view is admirable in the abstract, the statement is inaccurate in that it fails to reflect how people actually behave.
The popularity of revenge movies aptly illustrates that many people are not impressed with individuals who use restraint when exercising their power. In these movies the protagonist is typically portrayed as having certain physical abilities that would enable him to easily defeat the various adversaries he encounters. In the initial confrontations with these individuals he typically refrains from using his abilities to defeat them. The audience, however, soon grows tired of this, and when the hero finally loses control and completely demolishes his opponent, they burst into applause. This homey example strongly suggests that many people are more impressed with the use of power than with the restraint of its use.
The Gulf War provides another example of a situation where restraint in the use of power was not widely acclaimed. When the allied forces under the command of General Schwartzkoff showed restraint by not annihilating the retreating Iraqi army, the general was widely criticized by the public for not using the force available to him to eliminate this potential enemy once and for all. This example shows once again that often people are not impressed by individuals who exhibit restraint in using their power.
In conclusion, the examples cited above clearly indicate that, contrary to the view expressed in the quote, many―if not most―people are more impressed with
individuals who utilize their power to the utmost than with those who exercise restraint in the use of their power,