The ability to communicate in English is important for many jobs and therefore some companies offer ESL (English as a Foreign Language) courses to their non-English-speaking employees. One alternative to requiring company-sponsored ESL instruction is to require that all potential employees meet an English language proficiency standard before they may be hired. Compare and contrast these two alternatives in terms of advantages and disadvantages to the company.

Answer is given below

Explanation:

In today's era, the ability to communicate in English requires many jobs. Companies offer ESL courses to their non-English speaking employees. This is only effective for employees already hired in the organization. However, course results are ineffective and this strategy is of no avail if employees continue to use their own style without following the course content. On the other hand, prospective employees have an English language proficiency standard or are tested before hiring. This tool is very effective and is used in many companies today because the company can only hire talented candidates who are proficient in English, which is a business need for the company. If employees are already hired and the company wants to improve their standards in the English language, employees will undergo ESL courses and they will be required to write the exam after completing the course. It is essential that employees clear the test, otherwise they will enter the PIP (Performance Improvement Plan), which is a negative factor in the employee's record. Upon completion of the course, the staff continuously monitored the use of the English language. This strategy is very effective because it enhances e-mail writing and public speaking skills among employees Difficult. Demonstrating their skills needed for the job. This reduced the employee and decreased the productivity of the company. With fewer employees being laid off or put into PIP schemes that are too strict on employees, the company's reputation is beginning to wane.