IELTS HUBIELTS Discussion Essay on Work & Money & Society
Full IELTS Writing Task 2
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Some feel executives in large companies should receive high salaries while others think they are paid too much compared to ordinary workers.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Write at least 250 words.
Introduction
Paraphrase topic (split views on executive pay). State that both views will be discussed. State own opinion (agree with lower pay view, supporting fairer distribution).
Body Paragraph 1 View 1
Topic sentence for 'arguments for high executive pay'. Point 1: High responsibility and risk involved, justifies high pay. Point 2: Necessary to attract and retain top talent in a competitive market.
Body Paragraph 2 View 2
Topic sentence for 'arguments for reducing executive pay'. Point 1: Large pay gap causes resentment among regular workers; reducing it leads to a happier, more motivated workforce through fairer distribution. Point 2: The argument about needing high salaries to attract talent is flawed; successful companies exist with salary limits, proving success isn't solely dependent on high executive pay.
Body Paragraph 3 Opinion (Optional If Integrated)
Opinion is integrated into Body Paragraph 2, supporting the view that executive pay should be reduced.
Conclusion
Summarize main points (reasons for high pay vs. reasons for reducing the gap). Restate opinion that reducing the pay gap is stronger, citing reasons like fairer distribution, workforce happiness, and examples of successful companies with salary limits.
Band 9 Sample Answer:
There's a split in views about top-level management pay in big companies. Some people support high salaries, while others think these wages are too high compared to regular employees. I agree more with the second group, as I support fairer wealth distribution in a company.
Supporters of high executive pay often point out the huge responsibility these people have. They're the decision-makers, guiding the company to success, and any mistake could cause big financial losses. They argue this high-risk, high-reward situation justifies their large pay. They also say high salaries are needed to attract and keep the best talent. In a competitive market, companies need to offer good pay to bring in the best people, and cutting executive pay could lead to a loss of talent.
However, I agree more with those who want to cut executive pay. The first issue is the big pay gap between executives and regular workers. This pay inequality can cause resentment among lower-level employees, who may feel underappreciated despite their important role in the company's success. By cutting executive pay and sharing this wealth, companies can create a happier, more motivated workforce. Also, the idea that high salaries are needed to attract talent is flawed. Many successful companies, like Ben & Jerry's, have set salary limits without losing talent. Instead, they've created a culture that values all employees equally, showing that a company's success doesn't just depend on its executives.
In conclusion, while there are good reasons to keep high executive salaries, like attracting the best talent and paying for high-risk roles, I think the reasons to reduce this pay gap are stronger. Fairer wealth distribution can create a happier workforce, and the success of companies with salary limits shows that high executive pay isn't necessary for success.
Band 7 Sample Answer:
There exists a dichotomy of opinion regarding executive compensation in large corporations, with some advocating for high salaries, while others argue these salaries are disproportionately large compared to those of ordinary workers. My stance aligns more with the latter view, as I believe in a more equitable distribution of wealth within a company.
Those who endorse high executive salaries often cite the immense responsibility these individuals bear. As the decision-makers, executives are tasked with steering the company towards success, and any misstep could lead to significant financial losses. This high-risk, high-reward environment, they argue, justifies their substantial remuneration. Additionally, they contend that these inflated salaries are necessary to attract and retain top talent. In a competitive market, companies must offer attractive compensation packages to lure the best minds, and reducing executive pay could result in a talent drain.
Despite these arguments, I align more with those who advocate for a reduction in executive pay. The first point of contention is the vast wage disparity between executives and ordinary workers. This income inequality can breed resentment among lower-level employees, who may feel undervalued despite their crucial role in the company's success. By reducing executive pay and redistributing this wealth, companies can foster a more harmonious and motivated workforce. Moreover, the argument that high salaries are necessary to attract talent is flawed. Many successful companies, such as Ben & Jerry's, have implemented salary caps without experiencing a talent exodus. Instead, they have cultivated a culture that values all employees equally, proving that a company's success is not solely dependent on its executives.
In conclusion, while there are valid arguments for maintaining high executive salaries, such as attracting top talent and compensating for high-risk roles, I believe the arguments for reducing this pay gap are more compelling. A more equitable distribution of wealth can foster a more harmonious workforce, and the success of companies with salary caps demonstrates that inflated executive pay is not a prerequisite for success.