Critical respondent team 1’s arguments (3 minutes) Team A agreed with presenting team on two points: being an entreployee might give flexibility and choices of work, however, increasing self-commercialization can lead to mental illnesses and unstability: stress and uncertainty, enhanced by a lack of private life as well as financial pressure. However, the team argued that “entreployism” does not aid in improving social equality but rather the opposite as the upper class is the only who receive the benefits. Presenting team’s follow up 1 (2 minutes) The presenting team responded to this by agreeing that entreployees have more on their plate, thus decreasing private life. However, they argued that we are in a state transition and thus shift our behaviors to adapt. Critical respondent team 2’s arguments (6 minutes) Team B agreed that employism is only beneficial for the upper class. They emphasized the ethics of managers: managers can abuse this system and argued that managers should not only care about company success but rather nurture their employees. Moreover, increasing entreployee movement might result in a less caring society where people only care about self-advertising, self enhancement for their own benefits. The team also tried to give their opinions on the concept of entreployee made by Pongratz and Gunter (2003), claiming that it is an incorrect definition.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read both pages?
- Fall '19