The Ineffectiveness of Business Managers

Business management, though critical to the production process, is often achieved through the gross use and abuse of power as a form of direction for employees, a fact which results in reduced efficiency. Managers often treat their employees with very little to no compassion at all, electing instead, to use threats of termination of work, and at times, insults as a deterrent to any slacking off at work. Because of their superior position, such vile managers often get away with subjugating their employees, at times causing the onset of depression in some. Consequently, this undesirable and insensitive treatment has resulted in the reduction of morale among workers in affected corporations, firms which have consequently reported reduced profits. Secondly, so wide has the rift between managers and workers become, that the phenomenon is observable in forms of human expression such as song and film. The sheer number of such expressions point to the fact that, managers only exist to antagonize workers, and are the causal agents behind the chasm that splits the leadership of a company, and its workforce.

            Management is also inherently inefficient since it creates more bureaucratic steps within a company; all of which need fulfilling before any production process can be completed. Running things through managers, who often delay in the processing of workload or are at times absent, can result in the addition of minutes, even hours to the production timeline. Inevitably, managers, only serve to the lengthening of the production process, thereby considerably slowing down a company’s growth. The fourth evidence of the ineffectiveness of business managers is the fact that their very existence distances the employee from the decision-making process. The more managers a corporation has, the less likely it is for the employee on the ground floor to have any influence over the decisions made in the company. The vice versa is also true since, with fewer managers, the ground employees are more accessible for decision making.

Part 2

            While management has been misused in the past, particularly in the years leading to the turn of the century, the discipline has undergone conceptual and practical changes that ensure it remains a critical part of any company’s process.

Response to 1st

Logical Fallacy

            The first logical fallacy employed by the preceding argument is that most managers are often uncaring and unfeeling toward their employees. While this might have been true in most of the draconian corporations, it no longer holds when it comes to new companies that seek to operate in a global environment. Having a manager who treats employees like machines instead of people is a recipe for disaster in today’s market environment. It would be entirely problematic as the company would experience a high turnover of employee likely as often as each quarter. The internet has drastically enhanced transparency over the inner workings of companies, with company review sites being taking up the mandate of providing a platform for to rate one’s former employer. Companies having insensitive and dispassionate managers receive particularly poor reviews and subsequently fail to secure applications from the most talented and skilled persons. By researching credible and up to date sources concerning the progression of managers, the proponent of the fallacy could avoid such erroneous assertions in future.The proponent could have strengthened their claims by providing evidence of companies operating in the current global business environment that have insufferable managers who slow down the production process. 

Response to 2nd

Logical Fallacy

            The arguing party’s second fallacy is embedded in the manifestations of company life by film, song and other media. Though many depictions of business managers in contemporary art portray it in a negative light, it is important to note that most artists employ some measure of hyperbole in their art pieces. This is not to say that there aren’t companies all around the globe, which have been used as source material for artistic pieces which portray the central theme of the rift between management and workers. However, both SME’s and Fortune 500 companies realize the importance of the workforce and the alleviation of any friction between the workers and their managers. To this end, business managers today, consider employees as a company’s most significant assets, electing to treat them with respect, kind regard, and coordinate with them as efficiently as possible. This fallacy fails because the proponent uses artistic expression as evidence of poor leadership, which carries little empirical support. To avoid making this fallacy in future, the proponent could consider the using peer-reviewed and empirical sources for evaluation of the value of a business manager instead of forms of artistic expression.

Response to 3rd

Logical Fallacy

            Though delay can occur in companies with an extensive network of managers and workers, it rarely affects the overall running of the corporation. Technology has significantly shortened the process of communication or delivery of files from employees to workers. As such, any company can expedite the production process by using technology with which both the management staff, as well as the employees, must become proficient. Doing this will reduce, significantly, the amount of time wasted by document backlog. The proponent of the fallacy also makes an argument that managers can indeed take random days off, negatively affecting production, and without consequence. However, this does not hold up as evidence as many companies today are subject to the will of the stakeholders, who ensure that the business managers who work for their companies adequately satisfy their mandate. This is achieved through rigorous quarterly evaluations. Technology has also alleviated the need for a business manager to be physically present at work actually to do work. In most cases, the business manager can work remotely thus ensuring that the company always operates at optimal capacity.

Response to 4th

Logical Fallacy

            Though the fourth fallacy employed by the argument against the need for business managers might be true for large corporations, the same cannot be said for small and mid-sized companies. In SME’s, the number of managers from the ground employee to the executive leadership is usually just one or two. In this respect, the ground employees in such companies still have some influence over the decision-making processes. Moreover, nuance business control models are based more on a mesh framework than they are traditional, food-chain hierarchical models. In such control structures, everyone is free to talk to everyone else concerning matters that drive the company forward. Workers in many corporations also have unions which cater for their right to act as part of the decision-making process. Evidently, the proponent of this fallacy ought to familiarize themselves with the intricacies of more nuanced business models, to avoid making such incorrect statements in future. The proponent of the argument against the need for business managers in companies today could have strengthened their claims by providing examples of small and medium level companies in which hierarchical line structure is still employed.