|
露怯露怯了(224第二篇) In this argument the author is recommending that the Apogee Company close its field offices and conduct all its operations from a single location. This recommendation is in response to the present lower profit compared with when the company had all its operations in one location. The author's line of reasoning is that centralization would improve profitability by cutting costs and helping the comapny maintain better supervision of all employees. This line of reasoning is problematic in at least two critical respects. First, no evidence has been offered to support the assumption that the reason the company enjoyed high profitability was its single location. While location may be an important contributing factor to a business's success, it is not the only such factor. Many other reasons - effective business practice, efficient advertising, or considerate customer service - could also account for the company's success. Lacking a detailed analysis of the reasons the Apogee Company succeeded, to assert that closing field offices will bring the company with higher profit is not convincing. Second, the author unfairely assumes that centralization equals to better supervision of all employees. This is not necessarily the case. It is possible that for some certain companies/businesses, centralization will worsen rather than improve the management of employees. If the Apogee Company is this case, then the lax management will surely affect the company's profitabilty negatively sooner or later. In sum, the argument is not well reasoned. To strengthen the recommendation, the author need to dive into the reason that the company was more profitable before and demonstrate that centralization can surely led to lower cost and better supervision, which will bring the Apogee Company with higher profitability.
[此贴子已经被作者于2007-10-28 1:00:12编辑过] |