Business · 6 đề · 1000+ Phrases

There have been calls for large corporations to build sports and social facilities for the local communities where they operate. In my view, I would agree on the grounds that these facilities can strengthen communal bonds and promote a company’s image in a positive light.

Firstly, as most people are increasingly beset with professional duties, they often lack the time to participate in communal activities and forge meaningful connections with one another. By constructing sports and social facilities, these companies can grant these people the appropriate setting for them to participate in common activities. This is evident in cities well-known for quality of life such as Hanoi where most of the parks there have been built by Vinaconex, one of the largest companies in Vietnam. Hence, most of the local denizens are able to engage in conversation with each other and forge new relationships during holiday seasons or through recreational activities held in those parks.

Secondly, the provision of communal facilities can create a positive image of the sponsoring companies. These facilities promulgate a sense that the sponsors are giving back to the community and fulfilling public promises of social responsibility. This can therefore build trust between these large companies and the local people. To cite one instance, Nostrand Ltd., a latex manufacturer based in upstate New York, provided funding for local sports centers in various towns across the state, enabling their citizens to engage in various community-based sports. A by-product of this act is residents there now appreciate the brand and purchase the company’s products in droves.

In conclusion, large companies should be encouraged to provide sports and social facilities for local communities as they can help strengthen communal bonds and promote their brand. Such facilities will continue to flourish in the near future because of these decided benefits.

Many modern offices are now adopting open spaces in lieu of separate working areas for employees. While some would say that such a setting can heighten the level of distraction as well as pose risks to employees’ health, I contend that the fostering of closer collaboration among colleagues and reducing costs outweigh the disadvantages.

Open-space offices can result in more distractions which consequently affect productivity and health. Owing to a lack of private space, employees often have to contend with distractions, such as nearby conversations and co-workers congregating. These diversions may cause them to lose focus and engagement in their work. Furthermore, employees can potentially suffer from poorer health in an open-space office. As they are situated closer together, it gives various pathogens ample opportunity to spread and maximise the potential rate of infection. This can lead to increased absences from work, which in turn may negatively affect overall productivity.

However, open-space offices engender better social relations and cost less. Having an open office can reduce construction and utility expenses as well as the need for office equipment. All employees can share equipment and resources such as printers and stationery. Open-space offices can also engender closer communication and teamwork between workers. Such an environment makes it easier for them to exchange ideas and fosters greater inclusion. Since most businesses thrive on innovation, having all employees in a single space can help those ideas to flow faster and get everyone involved in the process.

In conclusion, despite the disadvantages related to loss of concentration and adverse risks to health, I would assert these are outweighed by how such a setup can stimulate closer collaboration between employees and reduce costs. In the near future, it is likely offices with separate rooms will completely be phased out in favour of open offices.

Many people regard math skills as a key factor to achieve success in business as it facilitates the decision making process. However, I believe it is only one out of various factors that contribute to business success and therefore non-essential.

On the one hand, math enables key people to make better decisions. One application of business mathematics is to provide statistics that can predict future scenarios. These predictions might lay a firm foundation for more informed and evidence-based decisions, replacing biased ones based on managers’ gut feelings. For decades, Unilever has utilised a statistical model that can forecast the supply and demand of fast-moving consumer goods, allowing the company leaders to promptly plan production and sales of each product category.

On the other hand, I believe that one can run a business successfully without excellent math skills. In fact, many entrepreneurs have built billion-dollar enterprises thanks to great personal qualities. A good example in this case is Nguyen Thanh Duc, the chairman of NTD Group. He was known to be a disruptive student that failed almost all school subjects including math, yet he rose to become an inspirational leader who could motivate his employees to strive to gain collective success for the corporation. In addition, his success is attributed to the courage to take the risks that rational calculations, such as those that guide Unilever, would rule out. As these leadership qualities concurred with a good fortune, his startup has evolved into a multinational business empire, becoming market leaders in many industries including real estate, fishery and forestry.

In conclusion, although statistical math could help make better decisions, I am of the opinion that risk taking, inspirational personality traits and luck are crucial to drive an enterprise to success. That is why business schools should focus more on honoring interpersonal skills including leadership and communication.