All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary.
Generally, companies tend to hire outside consultants to find innovative and more efficient ways to improve their activities for the simple reason that those people are professionals in the sector; thus, those consultants have the expertese and the skills to find the best possible solution on a certain matter.
While it is true that such expertese might be quite expensive for the compnay budget, also considering that by exploiting internal workforce in order to tackle problems efficiency, instead, would be at cost almost zero; it is also the case that well known consultants with important historical records, tend to bring a considerable advantage to companies'operations.
Meanwhile, internal employees might also be biased. In fact, considering an employee who has been working for several years whithin a certain corporation, she would certainly have acquired a methodology and a certain way of tackling problems typical of that oorganisation, and probably also quite commond among other employees. Therefore, it seems quite demanding for this employee to bring innovatinve ideas regarding how to improve operational efficiency when she has always been doing things in a certain way.
As a matter of fact, this is a common problem among corporations and often, this pushes managers to opt hiring external consultants that are able to face issues and critical situations at a macro level.
Additionally, facing complexities as outsiders could reslt extremely beneficial in finding the critical points or the bottle necks that hinder a proper internal effciency and the development of the business.
Besides, defining such expertese as "unnecessay" is probably eccesively extreme. If it is true that listening to internal employees and receiving fresh and sincere feedbacks from those actually involved in every-days dynamics could result succesfully benefical in improving operational effciency, still some external opinions and considerations from experts should always be wellcome; especially keeping in mind that such experts could potentially be the best in the sectors and hence, have probably much more knowledge than any other employee.
In conclusion, while it is certainly fundamental to listen to internal employees who are faicing everyday internal inefficiencies, consultants advice is probably one of the most effective tool to bring the organisaiton to the next level.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-08-10 | Bholuchand | 58 | view |
| 2023-10-15 | Aishwarya01 | 54 | view |
| 2023-09-30 | Isolus | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-23 | bacec | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-18 | Adesina Boluwatito | 83 | view |
- n 58
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations we cannot permit i 43
- All too often companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees such consultants would be unnecessary 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 82, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...amental to listen to internal employees who are faicing everyday internal inefficiencie...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, hence, if, regarding, so, still, therefore, thus, well, while, in conclusion, in fact, as a matter of fact, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 58.6224719101 75% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2053.0 2235.4752809 92% => OK
No of words: 362.0 442.535393258 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.67127071823 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24063762902 2.79657885939 116% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 215.323595506 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.57182320442 0.4932671777 116% => OK
syllable_count: 639.9 704.065955056 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 20.2370786517 49% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 36.0 23.0359550562 156% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 116.40296388 60.3974514979 193% => OK
Chars per sentence: 205.3 118.986275619 173% => OK
Words per sentence: 36.2 23.4991977007 154% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.3 5.21951772744 274% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.97078651685 141% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.242994480558 0.243740707755 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0846021352134 0.0831039109588 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0624108903121 0.0758088955206 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101292814734 0.150359130593 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0682645536245 0.0667264976115 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 23.4 14.1392134831 165% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 18.02 48.8420337079 37% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 19.7 12.1743820225 162% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.2 12.1639044944 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.09 8.38706741573 120% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 100.480337079 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 29.5 11.8971910112 248% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 16.4 11.2143820225 146% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.