I have two essays that I'll love some feedback on.
All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary.
- It's always crucial to spend our time listening to our employee. In comparison to outside consultants, employees are the ones whom have been in the company the longest. They are also the driving force of the operation. However, there are also valid reasons companies should hire outside consultant. Primarily, they're a great candidate to provide fresh ideas. Secondly, they're professionally trained to advice companies so they can thrive.
Hiring an outside consultant could be a rough process, as they can direct the company in one way or for the worse. Selecting someone from the outside that you can trust with a company is not easy. However, these are trained professionals that spots pitfalls and rooms for improvement. The problem with consulting within for one, is groupthink. There has been internally established roles of leadership within the company, established norms, and assigned authority. If those authorities are the ones to make decisions, it's difficult for the rest of the team to disagree, depending on the leader themselves. Furthermore, if the team is used to the decision of the leader, perhaps it's predictable, they're at a higher risk to blindly follow. Although, this may save their jobs, it can hurt the growth of the company.
In another sense, hiring an outside consultant can help brainstorm different prospective. A great treatment of groupthink is also to find a different perspective, someone that has not been there from the beginning. They're more likely to pick up on the pitfalls of the plan and steer them in the right direction. Sometimes, companies are build on a firm goal, and after time spent focused on such goal, it's difficult to see outside of the box. Having a different perspective can elevate a company that may have not if they had stay consulting from within.
Lastly, hiring a consultant is better because they're professional that have been trained in different ways that a company can thrive. If the qualified consultant has a great deal of experience, working with different industries and different companies. They're able to combine their experience, perhaps from different companies to tailor the best fit for the company. It would be difficult for the company to see what's making other companies so successful, unless they have a spy! Which in this case, would be highly unethical!
Consultant within the company can save the company some money initially and also to build company morale as the employees feels that their opinion matters. However, speaking in longevity wise, the company can thrive with the resources of a fresh and different perspective, a highly experienced consultant can take the company to the next level that the company itself my have not known it's possible.
Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which the disease is detected.However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations,we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered
This argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily the argument is based on unwarranted assumptions that many lives can be saved if inoculations against cow flu were administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected, yet it fails to provide statistics or explanations on why it's a good idea. Therefore, it makes the argument invalid.
The argument in the first sentence fails to provide explanations for the areas that are not detected. Lives might be saved for those areas that are detected, but what exactly are those areas? If those are more urban or wealthy areas with more support, then what about the more rural areas without much support? Had the argument had provided a fair explanation of the trustworthiness of how the disease can be detected, then it may have been a more sense, but even then, they would have to further explain the process of detecting the disease, and how often should it be done.
The argument also leaves vague questions, for example, "since there is a small possibility that a person will die", that does not sound promising as all. What is the statistic of the possibility, as we understand that not every treatment is 100 percent guarantee to work. However, it would be more convincing and comprehendible had the argument provided some facts and statistics on the vague "possibility" of death. Even then, they would have to provide the validity of the statistics. If it was reproduced, or if it had been experimented professionally.
Finally, the argument concludes by "we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu" after explicitly proposing that it can save many lives is an unnecessary statement unless there has a solution to the problem. This last sentence completely wipes out the importance of the whole argument. If this is not permitted, what are the other options to improve the success rate of the inoculations? Had this sentence been provided with more comforting solution, it would have made the argument valid.
Because the argument was vague and made unwarranted assumptions. it failed to make a convincing case why inoculations against cow flu should be routinely administered to all people in detected areas.
Please!!! Thank you so much!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)