Face-to-face communication is better than other types of communications, such as letters, emails, or telephone calls.
Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.
Experts throughout the developing and developed world have debated whether direct communication or its counterparts such as emails and telephones is a better means of conveying ideas among people. Alongside the arguments from both sides, the discoveries from Hong Kong have provided some insights into this controversy. This essay will discuss both views using the examples in general business sectors to demonstrate points.
To begin with, direct communication is intuitively perceived as a stimulus of business development. The central reason behind this stems from the fact that one can obtain extra supports from the medium other than the speech itself, such as facial expression and gestures. In fact, the majority of project managers in Hong Kong hold a stand-up meeting in morning in order to have a face-to-face briefing on status of ongoing progress. Moreover, the ensuing efficiency of having a direct communication has been increasingly recognised around the globe, despite the arguments regarding physical limitation such as distance. Therefore, it is conclusively clear that direct communication is likely to preclude both sides from being misled.
Although there is a case for fostering the productivity, the downside of face-to-face communication cannot be neglect. This is largely because this type of communication often accompany with a restriction that necessitates all participants staying in a proximity for a while, which then induce extra cost of transportation and significant round-trip time. For instance, there has been evidently a plunge in the use of direct communication among business partners since 2000. Consistent with this line of thinking is that electronic means of communication would be the dominant option for modern business, in particular within multinational corporations. Thus it is possible to state beyond doubt that the dependence of face-to-face communication is destined to hinder business growth.
In conclusion, face-to-face communication has a pivotal role to play inside a company, yet over-dependency could have a detrimental effect on business expansion. Given the trend of globalisation, it is predicted that the employment of communication technology will grow in importance in the foreseeable future.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-09-02 | RockyGagKy | 89 | view |
| 2018-09-02 | RockyGagKy | 89 | view |
- Communication is less between family members of late. Do you agree or disagree?To what extent do you agree? 84
- Some people think that schools have to be more entertaining, while others think that their sole purpose is to educate. To what extent do you agree? Use reasons and specific examples to explain your answer. 11
- The charts below give information about travel to and from the UK, and about the most popular countries for UK residents to visit.Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant. 78
- Face-to-face communication is better than other types of communications, such as letters, emails, or telephone calls.Use specific reasons and details to support your answer. 89
- As more and more students enter universities, academic qualifications are becoming devalued. To get ahead in many professions, more than one degree is now required and in future it is likely that people will take a number of degree courses before even sta 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 655, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ular within multinational corporations. Thus it is possible to state beyond doubt th...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, while, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, in general, in particular, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 24.0651302605 71% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 41.998997996 148% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 8.3376753507 252% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1931.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 337.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.72997032641 5.12529762239 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.34713628777 2.80592935109 119% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 176.041082164 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.596439169139 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 609.3 506.74238477 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.9399525566 49.4020404114 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.733333333 106.682146367 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4666666667 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.73333333333 7.06120827912 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216421104894 0.244688304435 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.06976276852 0.084324248473 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0552281412336 0.0667982634062 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124112254413 0.151304729494 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0396908693891 0.056905535591 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 13.0946893788 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 50.2224549098 64% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.44779559118 175% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.25 12.4159519038 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.93 8.58950901804 116% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 78.4519038076 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 10.7795591182 158% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.