Some employers are sure that control helps to increase productivity and create a team spirit, which would lead to better results so that firms could gain more profit. Other people claim that there is no need in keeping an eye on workers.
Many firms face a situation when they have to decide whether they allow employees to work on their projects off office or maintain supervision of a workplace. Some employers are sure that control helps to increase productivity and create a team spirit, which would lead to better results so that firms could gain more profit. Other people claim that there is no need in keeping an eye on workers as freedom can allow employers to spend their time wiser, which still would result in a better outcome for a firm. Undoubtedly, the statement given is rather controversial; however, closer examination reveals that companies are better off when they maintain more traditional approach – supervising.
The first reason in support of the opinion that traditional workplace is far better is the fact that workers have no incentive to spend work day doing nothing because of supervision. Hence, if they had stayed at home working on some project, they could have spent way more time on it because they would have had a possibility to pay their attention to something else; for instance, social networks or online games. While supervising, there is no chance to draw attention to other non-relevant things.
Another reason to be given is team spirit. Working under traditional arrangements means that employees spend their work time communicating with co-workers. Small talks on breaks, helping one another with some difficult issues leads to warmer relationships, which results in positive emotions and good mental health. When workers are not exhausted physically and mentally, their productivity rises, which is obviously more profitable for companies as better results lead to higher yield.
Working at home may have some benefits, too. If an employer has a possibility to work wherever he/she prefers, he can maintain his/her schedule. One prefers to work in the night; another feels better while working early in the morning. However, freedom can cause inefficient use of time. Those who cannot meet deadlines should not be given such freedom, and unfortunately, there are mainly few people who can do their job on time.
While there are arguments to be considered for both sides, it is quite clear that there is a greater advantage to the traditional arrangements. Not only firms but also workers are better off in that case.
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 50
- Some employers are sure that control helps to increase productivity and create a team spirit, which would lead to better results so that firms could gain more profit. Other people claim that there is no need in keeping an eye on workers. 83
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 58
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 83
- The effectiveness of a country's leaders is best measured by examining the well-being of that country's citizens. 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 70, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arrangements'' or 'arrangement's'?
Suggestion: arrangements'; arrangement's
... team spirit. Working under traditional arrangements means that employees spend their work t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, so, still, while, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 58.6224719101 72% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1958.0 2235.4752809 88% => OK
No of words: 379.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16622691293 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75622179544 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 215.323595506 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.538258575198 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 597.6 704.065955056 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.38483146067 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.1739393214 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.777777778 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0555555556 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05555555556 5.21951772744 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.350178243658 0.243740707755 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10641670738 0.0831039109588 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.171838003174 0.0758088955206 227% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176407952939 0.150359130593 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.1719017589 0.0667264976115 258% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 100.480337079 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.