If our corporation began donating a significant portion of its profits to humanitarian causes, our employees’ motivations and productivity would increase substantially and our overall profits would increase as well.

Argument:

Studies have found that employees for 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 motivations 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’ motivations and productivity would increase substantially and our overall profits would increase as well.

Question:
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and use the 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 refuse the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.


Answer:
The argument states that motivations and productivity of employees would be increased if for-profit corporations started donating some a part of its profit. This idea is based on premise that employees in non-profit organizations are more motivated than those in commercial companies because of recognition of importance of their work for the society. However, there are several flaws on assumptions that lessen credibility of the statement.

The first issue is insufficient research about being monitored and evaluated. The statement says that employees for not-for-profit organizations perform much better than those of for-profit corporations at work when they are not monitored or evaluated. Generally speaking, most employees are, however, monitored and evaluated their work and output by their bosses in most corporations. Therefore, the author needs to compare performance when employees are monitored with when not monitored.

Also, the conclusion is based on a false research that the author does not show how many organizations and corporations have been interviews and studied for. Every research must indicate its research condition, for example, how many organizations are subject to be studied and when the research is done. Since there is no specific explanation of research condition, this conclusion has been led by just research on a few organizations. Comparison among a small number of subjects makes the result not objective but more biased by characteristic factors that each organization and company has.

Finally, working environment and conditions are not defined in this statement. The length of operation hour, salary, and holidays are crucial factors to determine how well workers are motivated. According to the author, employees of non-profit organizations are highly motivated than those of business companies. Without definition of working condition, it could be suggested that difference of productivity and motivation is caused by difference of working condition. For example, for-not-profit organization offers larger salary than for-profit corporations. The author must mention under what condition each workers are working.

While it may seem true that employees for non-profit organizations are more motivated and productive than those for business corporations, some critical flaws on assumptions make it less convincing. The author must explain about performance under supervision, research condition, and working environment. Before any conclusion is made, every possible factor must be discussed.