3. “Corporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise. A ‘flat’ organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees.”
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.
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 speaker’s view, for two reasons.
In the first place, the speaker’s preference for a “flat” structure is based upon the claim that cooperation and collegiality (the relationship of colleagues; specifically: the participation of bishops in the government of the Roman Catholic Church in collaboration with the pope) 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 (adj. 离题,不中肯,不得要领). 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 (of value: 有价值的) 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 speaker’s 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 (in any case: adv.无论如何) provides a feeble rationale for the preference of one organizational structure over another.