The arguments stated by the author supporting the third reason is that large number of businesses are outsourcing less important function to smaller companies, consultant ants and e-lancers. This reason is true. But the general conclusion cannot be drawn on this basis. A very small part of the organisations activities are outsourced. Another point to be noted is that e-lancentric organisations are those whose activities are primarily internet based. As a result they are more flexible in comparison to other organisations. Whereas in other organisations the use of internet is limited to certain activities only. The author, here, is trying to draw a general conclusion on the basis of a small section of the society. Clearly, all important factors have not been taken into consideration.
The change of masculine values to more feminine styles of management is a reason drawn on the assumption that there has occurred a shift from hierarchy to wirearchy. The author has again failed to provide enough evidence supporting this. But the argument that inter-personal and communication skills are of vital importance and that emphasis is on teamwork, co-operation and openers is true. Further down in the article the author contradicts herself by saying that a mix of feminine and masculine characteristics is vital. She also mentions that to retain a competitive edge hard leadership skills or masculine skills are essential. But the author’s conclusion is that leaders have become evangelists rather than technocrats and visionaries instead of managers follow the reason.
The next reason is itself an assumption the author has not given any evidence supporting her statement that leadership has taken a more spiritual dimension. She asserts that innovation, integrity, inspiration and intention, which are the values of the pioneering businesses in the present economy, are all routed in intuition. This reason is not entirely true, nor does the conclusion stated follow these reasons.
The author has drawn her conclusion from the assumption that the CEO’s rotate in the old organisational set up and values have a working culture wherein there existed a gap between their work life and private life. She also claims that this gap hindered the human potential and creativity Helen Wilkinson does not support her argument with appropriate evidence. Therefore the assumption cannot be taken into confidence and conclusion cannot be drawn on its basis. On the basis of the analysis done above, it can inferred that the article ‘Working@Life’ is not well focused. Most of the conclusions are drawn on the basis of the assumptions. These assumptions have not been supported by enough evidence to prove their credibility. Most of the reasons mentioned in the article that supports the conclusion failed to satisfy all the four tests.
The first part of the article discusses on the need for modern managers to possess a new set of skills in comparison to the managers of the industrial age. She also mentions about the various skills adopted by new managers for managing employees, which are characteristically different from those employed by managers of the industrial age. The article also mentions several factors like transformation in technology, shift from hierarchy to wirerarchy etc as factors that have resulted in the adoption of new skills by the modern managers.
In the second part of the article more emphasis has been given to leadership and its new spiritual dimension. Here again the author draws conclusions based on unjustified assumptions. The author also tries to draw a clear line of distinction between a new age leader and an old one, which is rather, quite impossible. The author could have presented her conclusion in a better manner if she had based it on certain proved facts and data rather than on assumptions. She could have attempted to express her reasons in a logical manner, thus creating a link between every point. The author failed to give reasonable and a rational nexus between her arguments and her conclusion with some irrelevant comments. The author has also attached undue importance to certain points, which are not of vital importance to support her conclusion.
