Multi-Step Method Memo Analysis - Speech or Presentation Example

Multi-Step Method Memo Analysis Grade (April 17, Multi-Step Method Memo Analysis Introduction Asking questions is the basis of individuals reacting to what they see or hear, since accepting just whatever a person encounters amounts to personalizing other people’s opinions (Browne & Keeley, 2014). Additionally, in order for individuals to be able to evaluate arguments, they must be in a position to possess the full knowledge of the argument. Thus, this critical analysis seeks to evaluate and analyze a memo as developed by Anil Ravaswami, the Vice-President of Human Resources of Cliffside Holding Company of Massapequa (CHCM), and sent to the CEO of the organization, based on the Multi-Step Method. Analysis What are the issues and the conclusions? The issues presented in the memo, is the issue of sending junior financial executives of the organization to an annual training program (Ravaswami, 2012). The memo is a response to a request that was made by the CEO to the vice-president of human resources, to evaluate the merit of this suggestion. The major issue is that one member of the staff is recommending that the junior executives be sent to the leadership training program annually, yet the organization has had successful leadership transition without the need to have the people to succeed the leaders being trained through a program. Sending the junior executives to the leadership program will cost the organization a lot of money, to the tune of $10,000 annually for training and another $10,000 annually as loss of their services during the training. The major problem however, is that it is not guaranteed that sending the junior executives to the leadership training program will make them good leaders. The conclusion is that there is no need to send the junior executives to the leadership training program. What are the reasons? The reason for objecting to the sending of the junior executives to the training program is the fact that leaders are born and not made. Therefore, sending junior executives to the leadership training program may not be helpful, it cannot make an individual who is not naturally a leader, become a good leader. Further, other than use the organizational resources to send the junior executives to the leadership training program, such resources can be applied towards recruiting individuals who have the requisite leadership traits, and thus save the organization the unnecessary resource wastage. Which words or phrases are ambiguous? The phrase “our leadership has been successful and effective”, as found in the memo is ambiguous. This is because, successful and effective leadership can be defined in very varied terms, based on the context and objective for which the leadership is involved. Thus, the use of this phrase creates a meaning that is unclear, since it does not define the parameters of successful and effective leadership and in which context and under which objective is the leadership is being evaluated. The other ambiguous phrase in the memo is the phrase “tall physical stature is possessed by leaders”. This phrase does not make it clear whether the short stature is a characteristic possessed by non-leaders, or whether it is a must that leaders must have the tall stature. What are the value and descriptive assumptions? The first assumption as presented in the memo is that effective and successful leaders have a tall stature, and thus anyone without a tall stature, is not a good leader. The assumption is made apparent by the author of the memo observing that, for example Ms. Florence Forsythe, the person advocating for the sending of the junior executives to the leadership training program, is the only senior executive in the organization without a tall stature, explaining why she is not a good leader. The other assumption is that the reason for the suggestion to send the junior executives to the leadership program is personal and also targeted at discrediting the vice-president of human resources. No evidence has been presented to that effect. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning? The fallacy contained in the memo is that leaders are born and not made. This may not be true since people can be trained on skills and competencies of leading and still become effective and successful leaders (Newsome, 2007). On the other hand, there are those who are born with natural leadership dispositions. How good is the evidence? The evidence given is good, owing to the fact that it is based on facts. For example, the argument that CHCM has had effective and successful leadership is backed up by the evidence that the organization has been operating for 50 years and has sustained an average of 12% growth per annum, without sending leaders to training. Further, the argument that leaders possess tall stature is supported by the evidence that within the CHCM senior executive, all executives have a tall stature except one. Additionally, the author of the memo has supported the argument that leaders possess a tall stature, through including a table of the greatest leaders in United States history, which has indicated that those leaders considered to have been great in the history of America had a tall stature. The argument that sending the junior executives to the leadership training program is unnecessary; is supported by the evidence of a survey undertaken among the senior executives of the organization, where all, except one executive have supported this view. Are there rival causes? The rival causes as presented by the author of the memo is that envy and personal agenda related to the vice presidency of human resources position held by the author, as opposed to genuine need for having the junior executives groomed for leadership, is the cause for the suggestion to send the junior executives to the leadership training. Are the statistics deceptive? Deceptive statistics have been used by the author, both in referring to the survey undertaken on the CHCM organization and also on the evaluation of the stature of the executives of the organizations, where the author is referring to all executives, except one. What significant information is omitted? The significant information that has been omitted is the actual identity of the senior executive who supported the suggestion to send the junior executives of the company to the leadership training program. The author of the memo has stated that in the survey undertaken to establish whether he senior executives supported the idea of sending the junior executives to the leadership training program, all the senior executives found the suggestion unnecessary, except for one. The identity of the senior executive who supported the suggestion would have created a better understanding of whether the senior executive is only Ms. Florence or another senior executive. This information would have been crucial, since there already seems to be a rivalry course between the author of the memo and Ms. Florence. What reasonable conclusions are possible? The reasonable conclusions that are possible from the analysis of this memo are two. First, it is possible that there is an already existing rivalry between the vice president of CHCM organization and Ms. Florence. This could be the reason Ms. Florence recommended sending the junior executives of the company to the leadership program, to show that the vice president of human resources is unable to come up with such positive suggestions. The second possible conclusion is that the junior executives of CHCM organization have been found to be lacking in the required leadership skills and competency. Thus, the suggestion to send the junior executives to the leadership training program could be informed by the genuine observation that they need to be trained on certain aspects of leadership. References Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2014). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking (11th ed.). Boston : Pearson. Newsome, B. (2007). Made, not born: Why some soldiers are better than others. Westport, Conn: Praeger Security International. Ravaswami, A. (October 10, 2012). Memo: Leadership-Development Programs. Cliffside Holding Company of Massapequa. Read More