[Unknown Member]

Nowadays, many companies are adopting the policies of recruiting human resources for his or her whole lifetime . I completely accept as true with this transformation thanks to these prime reasons. Firstly, employees won’t leak the corporate secrets to other firms. Secondly, organizations may save huge wealth for the training processes of latest workers. This essay intends to research both reasons for my belief in details with suitable examples.

First of all, working for whole life period for association automatically eliminate the risks of leaking out of the company secrets. For example, if an association replace their staff members every year then organizations investment plans, production procedures and confidential information may be leaked through ex-workers. As a result, firms may suffer from mammoth profit losses. Therefore, I believe that team member who will do the job for the entire life span could not leak out the corporation’s data even after retirement. A recent survey by “The Times of India” reveals that 40% of workers claimed that they have shared the enterprise confidential information to other firms for sake of huge money.

Furthermore, I opine that companies may save huge training cost of new employees. Due to the continual change of workers, firms need to invest excessive wealth within the raining of latest staff members in order that they might work with none error. Consequently, firms would have saved enough fund by maintaining existing trained workers. This rescued capital might be used in other development processes of the association. For instance, in 2019, “The Dell” a famous software enterprise claimed that they might save a million dollars of coaching cost by maintaining existing employees.

In conclusion, it is indeed true that many corporations are applying the policies of hiring job workers for their whole life period. Because not only employees will not leak out the company policies to other firms but also organizations may save huge investment in training operations of new workers.

[Dipinder]

Thanks to these prime reasons is not apt for an essay. Rather, try using other expressions like owing to or due to or because of

Using real life examples in your body paragraph makes it look as if you have less reasons to back your point or opinion. Rather you can use two reasons to back same point

Moreover, it just adds to your essay with content which is not your’s. Essay is a test of your productive skills in English language and not your general knowledge

Second body paragraph is to address your second point of opinion, which is why it should not start with furthermore. Secondly/lastly/finally/another reason can be used to begin second body paragraph

Use furthermore where you are continuing or adding to the explanation of one point but with different example or reason

Rest, body structure and grammatically it’s fine. But try using gerunds by beginning a sentence with ‘ing’ word in your paragraphs, it helps to elicit better scores

4.5/6

[Dipinder]

Thanks to these prime reasons is not apt for an essay. Rather, try using other expressions like owing to or due to or because of

Using real life examples in your body paragraph makes it look as if you have less reasons to back your point or opinion. Rather you can use two reasons to back same point

Moreover, it just adds to your essay with content which is not your’s. Essay is a test of your productive skills in English language and not your general knowledge

Second body paragraph is to address your second point of opinion, which is why it should not start with furthermore. Secondly/lastly/finally/another reason can be used to begin second body paragraph

Use furthermore where you are continuing or adding to the explanation of one point but with different example or reason

Rest, body structure and grammatically it’s fine. But try using gerunds in your paragraphs, it helps to elicit better scores

[Unknown Member]

In recent decades, many researches have studied the importance of changing business employees . Indeed , to my mind, the need of hour requires changing business employees due to innovation methods as well as for employees amelioration. This essay intends to research both reasons for my belief in details with suitable examples.

Firstly, I believe the theory of maintaining old employees has become anachronism .This is due to the fact , change is obligatory , hiring new employees will help in instilling the modern methods of technology which in fact will save mammoth unnecessary costs for the business. For example, Considering the current pandemic , businesses are operating online, old-aged people are unfamiliar with the modern gadgets which makes this thing unsuitable for the company ; however new generation can operate electronic gadgets with ease.

Secondly, from the prospective of employees, it is of paramount importance for them to switch jobs as a result of which they are able to aggrandize their wealth. Owing to the fact , if employees take on different roles , not only they get increments in their salary but also they are able to learn different cultures of the organization which is necessary for the employees career growth. For example , As per my personal experience , I have witnessed that employees are more satisfied with change of their jobs because they got immense benefits such as hike in salary as well as got perks and are more victorious.

I would like to abridge my thoughts at the end by saying that businesses should change their employees not only it will help the companies to introduce current innovation technologies but also are beneficial for employees professional growth.

[NIL Admin]

Great going Femmy. Gods of IELTS are very happy with you 😁

The only thing to point out here is that, this seems a little short. Few more lines would have made this a perfect essay.

Band Score: 5.5/6.0

[Unknown Member]

[deepti khare]

Nowadays, there is a change in trend wherein more companies are focusing on hiring permanent employees rather than employees who switches job after every few years.

To begin with, the focus of an organization should be hiring a qualified, skilled person for the job and not for the tenure. Organizations make candidates contractually obliged to work with them and offer high salary and perks. At first the offer looks lucrative but over the period, the employee may feel frustrated with the monotonous job.

Organizations have started to believe that hiring permanent employees will require less focus on training and hiring. According to them, it saves their money and time and efforts to find a candidate. This way they are trending towards a cost-effective method which does not always work as a solution. They are restricting an employee’s knowledge and eventually he will get bored with his work. I have few colleagues who have been working from past 30 years in the same organization and their knowledge has been limited to what they have learnt in the organization which restrict them to think out of the box in many projects which were assigned to them.

Hiring right candidate with required skill set will not only make the employee focused, productive but will also help in increasing the organization’s productivity. Employees with experience of different organizations will bring new ideas and perspective and who know they may turn out a better resource.

While many advocates this new trend but I opine that people, who spend more time in an organization becomes mundane. Also, every organization has different approach and requirement. Organization should be open to hire fresh talent who may have different outlook.

[Unknown Member]

It seems to be a good strategy for businesses to hire employees who spends their entire lives in the same organisation. Some organisations prefer to have such a recruitment policy considering cost benefit, risk aversement and adaptability issues, but I am of the view that this approach does more harm than good both for the organisation and the employees alike.

The proponents of the policy of hiring employees for lifetime claims several benefits to this approach like the adaptability to the organisation, lower training cost, already known behaviour etc. Let me shed some light into each of these aspects and how could they go wrong.

The training cost would be reduced by hiring employees for lifetime in a scenario where the processes, systems and roles does not change much during their entire career. Apparently it doesn’t seem to be the case in this fast changing world. Most types of jobs are changing character, some jobs are getting entirely phased out while other new types of jobs are getting introduced. Employees who has experience working in other organisations may have already worked with a new technology and often functions as a subject matter expert when the current organisation implements that technology. While implementing a new technology, training the permanent employees in house cannot match the effectiveness of hiring someone who has working experience in the area.

There are also cases where the employees would get reluctant for changes, while the culture of switching jobs where the employees could learn and work on new things makes them more flexible and open to change. Yet it is not advisable to switch jobs frequently because it takes some time to get adapted to the organisation. The employees hired for lifetime scores high in this criteria: they would have already got accustomed with the organisational culture and practices.

While viewing from the employee perspective, many of them find it easy to stay in the same organisation for entire career because they wish to avoid the risk of leaving their comfort zones and stepping into unknown path. Some may have family obligations and proximity in location which compels them to stay in the company for lifetime. Yet if a situation arises that they have to switch jobs, it becomes a painful affair.

There are many more aspects to the question of hiring for lifetime versus hiring for specific project requirement. Even though both approaches have its own pros and cons, I do not find the approach of hiring employees to work for entire lifetime advisable.

[Unknown Member]

The success of the companies depends upon their employees as they are the front line workers who can take the company’s success graph upwards or downwards.

Should the companies hire employees who can spend their entire life is a debatable topic in itself.

Nowadays companies are focusing on becoming a great place to work hence they are making sure there internal customers ( employees ) are getting that feeling. There are specific teams within the organizations whose target is to resolve any issue which is bothering employees or becoming a barrier in delivering their best.

Finding the right candidate who meets all the requirements is a cost saving factor in comparison to those who serve for short tenure. Once the employee is onboard, time, resource, money is invested hence loosing an employee means starting all over again. When an employee leaves, companies not only loose manpower, they also loose productive hours, skill set & may be clients as most of the time such employees join their competitors.

Hiring people for lifetime has its Pros & Cons. A lifetime job guarantees the job security, a stable income, employee satisfaction & loyalty. Such employee will be able to deliver 100 % and can be top drivers towards organizational growth.

On the other hand, this may become a concern and may want the companies to think over again & again on their decision. It is quite possible that some employees may lose interest in their job as they find it monotonous. Or the employee is not productive or result oriented as per the companies expectation. At times, there are projects which are time bound and may require specific skill set hence in this scenario, full time man power is not required.

In my opinion, with the approach of hiring an employee for lifetime, only the suitable candidate who checks all the boxes should be selected as this will result in the investment which will definitely give higher returns to organization. There are many people in my organization who are working for more than 20-25 years and they haven’t thought ever to change their jobs as they are satisfied and contended.

To conclude – Companies should discuss the road map while recruiting people and may address the concern if any. Offer has to be lucrative, leaving no chance for employee to decline. Above all, the employee retention policy should be there and should be revisited time to time or updated as per the industry trends.

[Unknown Member]

Industrialisation coupled with technological advancement, admittedly have increased the employment opportunities in myriad fields ranging from computer hardware, artificial intelligence to hospitality and even health tourism. Should the appointment of employees be for life time or for limited tenure, has been a matter of debate and I personally am a supporter of long term employment.

Organisational goals do evolve over a period of time creating newer challenges, however the employees roles can simultaneously grow and compliment the same. As a matter of fact, long term employees are custodians of precedents which ensure continuity in the operations of the entity, apart from inculcating ownership in the individual, who has spent considerable time working in tandem with the employer, leading to alignment of perspectives too . For instance a study recently published on employee attitudes, pointed that long employed persons are more dedicated than those employed for shorter tenures.

On the contrary, it is sometimes argued that life term employment leads to complacency and reduced productivity as people loose competitiveness. These groups claim that tenure based engagements bring in project based skill sets apart from providing flexibility to the organisation in achieving its targets. However, proponents of this view, disregard the fact that constant influx and exit of employees creates a vacuum, in addition to fuelling materialism often leading to white collar crimes as been pointed by one prominent publication house, in its recent journal.

In conclusion, the advantages of selecting employees for working entire life far exceed the minor hiccups that are brought along, as elaborated above. Even otherwise from the point of view of equity, it will be immensely unfair to discharge the employees without extending them, the much needed job security which they truly deserve.

[Unknown Member]

Now a days traditional organizations are hiring employees who will work for them an entire career while at the same time new Multinational companies are looking for a variety of expert employee from different parts of the world. In my opinion hiring employees for the lifetime is not a good option for the growth of the company as well as an employee.

Firstly, it is a positive development for the company to keep looking for new hand for the same job as they will get the expertise of the work if one person does not have those skills. Importantly finding a new hand will also introduce updated method or technology in the job. Further, if the businesses hired employees who work for them during an entire career, then there is so much dependability of the company on that worker and there are huge chances that their business might be affected once the employee is retired. Even at that time it would be challenging for an employer to looking for an alternative.

Secondly, it is not good from the worker perspective as they will not get the desired growth in the same company which he can achieve by switching the multiple jobs. Sometimes there are higher chances that an employee has started losing interest while working for a longer time in the same company and they need the versatility in their profile to upgrade his skills and knowledge. So, an employee would be given a fair opportunity to search for a different job and if required explore other countries for occupation. As with the help of globalization people can work any part of the world without any restriction.

To Summarize, I must say that we are living in a developing country and need to change ourselves from the old mentality of hiring employee till retirement. An employee as well as department both should be given a fair chance to explore something new and better.

[Unknown Member]

Some people argue that corporations should employ the workers who are willing to stay working for the company their entire lives. I totally agree with this approach for several reason which I will explain in the following paragraphs.

To begin with, businesses invest lots of many to train their employees in order to improve their productivity and teamwork. For example, newly hired laboratory technician in a hospital would be given at least six months training in order to be able to run clinical tests independently. Moreover, employers prefer to have loyal workers who support their company and not thinking of leaving them when they get a better chance elsewhere. For instance, universities who have brilliant professors, provide them with great positions and benefits so they present their colleges in a good way. If these professors decide to leave them, the reputation of the university will be affected negatively.

On the other hand, having employees for a short period of time can have a negative effect on their business. To elaborate, when an accountant is hired for a taxes company, they have to pay for his training to be certified and do the required work. However, when he decides to leave the company for another position, they will lose time and money. Furthermore, in very competitive markets, the employers need to have loyal workforce that would serve the interest of their agency the best they can. To be more specific, legal corporates have lots of confidential sensitive information that need to be protected by their own working agents. This can’t be achieved unless they trust their agent’s loyalty towards them.

In conclusion, in order to achieve a better outcome, the corporations should employ employees that can keep working for them for a long term.

[NIL Admin]

Excellent work

But need to include some good vocal in it.

One typo , instead of ‘money’, you wrote ‘many’

Band Score: 5.0/6.0