- Choose either the Strategic Finance or the NYT article.
- Write a script where you ask for a raise based on the steps listed in those articles
- Find a classmate who wrote based on the opposite prompt and compare the differences in your rhetorical approaches.
Reading like a reader:
Lee and Dyer assert, “Managers tended to feel performance criteria should be applied to their subordinates’ behavior while nonperformance criteria should be applied to their own.” This article was written in the late ’70s.
Do you feel like performance is still the most-used criteria for salary advancement?
Would you prefer to be advanced based on performance or nonperformance measures?
Going back to the quiz, what did you rate as the most important and least important items? Why?
Reading like a writer:
In groups, draft a response letter to either Messmer or Wollan about your take on asking for a raise. What did they get wrong? What did they get right? Be sure to include any lingering questions that you have.
After leading us through major ideas and rhetorical characteristics of the text, link the reading to other reading materials and ideas from our class. These links could be to written choices (e.g., similarity in order of ideas, kinds of evidence, tone) and/or ideas in previous reading and discussion. Bonus for quoting your peers by name (see their handouts!). This practice will hone our synthesis skills and facilitate connections across reading materials (especially useful for papers).
Which type of argument do you find more convincing to you? Why?
Getting beyond the text:
On a piece of paper, write down the approach that you would take to asking for a raise. Would you take a direct approach? Would you wait until you had a competing offer? Think about the circumstances that would prompt you to think that you are ready for a raise. You’ll share this piece of paper when you’re done, so probs don’t write anything too spicy.