EMMAVASR26
Answered

Bonjour, j'ai fait ce texte anglais mais je ne suis pas du tout forte en anglais (orthographe et grammaire). Est ce que quelqu'un peut le corriger svp


In a memo to the managers of a major automobile manufacturing company, the head of human resource department argued that the company should donate a portion of its profits to humanitarian causes in order to increase motivation, productivity and overall profits.
He bases his argument on the fact that people working in non-profit organisations are more motivated to perform well because their work is not monitored, and they believe they are improving society.
However, the memo gives no clear evidence. The author's argument is flawed.

First, the author argues that people working in non-profit organisations are more motivated to perform well because their work is not monitored or evaluated. However, this has nothing to do with giving a portion of the company's profits to a humanitarian cause. This argument is invalid and does not add anything to the justification. Furthermore, some employees claim that being evaluated is a source of motivation for them because they have targets to reach. This argument is even more objectionable.
Despite this, one of the author's conclusions is to increase the motivation of employees. In this case, we would have dealt with the argument of changing supervision and evaluation differently. But here the author is trying to convince people to donate part of the profits to a humanitarian cause.

Secondly, the author argues that one of the sources of motivation for employees of non-profit companies is that they feel they are doing something meaningful that improves society (even if they are not paid for it). Of course, doing something voluntary and self-chosen is motivating. Such employees often have a very personal reason behind their act of volunteering. That is why they give their all in their work. But is this really a reason to donate part of the profits to humanitarian causes? In the first instance, it will not affect the work and direct impact of the employees. That is, they will not see the direct impact of their work as someone working in an animal shelter, for example, might. It is a sum of money that will be paid by the management and that they may not remember by the end of the year. Also, the causes may not interest them as much as the causes for which the employees of non-profit organisations work. They will not choose. It will be the managers, or it will be the majority of the employees, but the whole company will not be satisfied.

In conclusion, the author's arguments are not relevant to the decision to donate part of the company's profits to humanitarian causes. Indeed, giving a sum of money at the end of the year is not concrete enough to motivate employees to work better until they increase their performance and the company's overall profits. Moreover, all the evidence used by the author concerns non-profit organisations. But we are in a business. The challenges and objectives are not the same.

Sagot :

Correction:
En vrai c’est pas mal, je suis pas non plus pro mais voilà quelques corrections de grammaire

In a memo to the managers of a major automobile manufacturing company, the head of human resource department argued that the company should donate a portion of the profits to humanitarian causes in order to increase motivation, productivity and overall profits.
He bases his argument on the fact that people working in non-profit organisations are more motivated to perform well because their work is not monitored, and they believe they are improving society.
However, the memo gives no clear evidence. The author's argument is flawed.

First, the author argues that people working in non-profit organisations are more motivated to perform well because their work is not monitored or evaluated. However, this has nothing to do with giving a portion of the company's profits to a humanitarian cause. This argument is invalid and does not add anything to the justification. Furthermore, some employees claim that being evaluated is a source of motivation for them because they have targets to reach. This argument is even more objectionable.
Despite this, one of the author's conclusions is to increase the motivation of employees. In this case, we would have dealt with the argument of changing supervision and evaluation differently. But here the author is trying to convince people to donate part of the profits to a humanitarian cause.

Secondly, the author argues that one of the sources of motivation for employees of non-profit companies is that they feel they are doing something meaningful that improves society (even if they are not paid for it). Of course, doing something voluntary and self-chosen is motivating. Such employees often have a very personal reason behind their act of volunteering. That is why they give their all in their work. But is this really a reason to donate part of the profits to humanitarian causes? In the first instance, it will not affect the work and direct impact of the employees. That is, they will not see the direct impact of their work as someone working in an animal shelter, for example, might. It is a sum of money that will be paid by the management and that they may not remember by the end of the year. Also, the causes may not interest them as much as the causes for which the employees of non-profit organisations work. They will not choose. It will be the managers, or it will be the majority of the employees, but the whole company will not be satisfied.

In conclusion, the author's arguments are not relevant to the decision to donate part of the company's profits to humanitarian causes. Indeed, giving a sum of money in the end of the year is not concrete enough to motivate employees to work better until they increase their performance and the company's overall profits. Moreover, all the evidence used by the author concerns non-profit organisations. But we are in a business. The challenges and objectives are not the same.