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.
In seeking ways to increase profits and operate more efficiently, firms often hire outside consultants. Although the practice cannot substitute for ongoing dialogue with the employees, it is nevertheless an important tool that may improve the firm's operation significantly.
For one thing, to correctly evaluate the firm's position and detect possible obstacles hindering its success, it is important to have someone objective nearby. After all, the firm's professional affairs are often convoluted with private issues, whims and desires. When your salary or working conditions are at stake, it seems dubious to expect you will be able to present an unconditional, disinterested attitude, and you are not to blame. Hiring outside consultants allows the firm to get a realistic evaluation of its contemporary position, in a way that no employee, smart and decent as he might be, can achieve.
Second, employees do not only tend to be intrinsically subjective, but they also lack the professional expertise to provide the firm with an accurate analysis. Outside consultants, though indubitably varying in their expertise, are trained to detect problems, analyze business schemes and give valuable suggestions regarding the firm's management. As in any field and every issue, obtaining the desired results behooves the company to hire the right people for the job, and professional consultants are just what the firm may need.
Listening to the employees is, for sure, an important practice that has been proved to boost firms' performance in any field. When workers feel the firm cares about them, they are more willing to cooperate and devote their time and efforts to the common good. Satisfied workers cannot, however, take the place of outside consultants, since, as noted, they lack both the objective stance and the nesaccery expertise to make a fair evaluation.
To sum up, listening to the firm's employees and getting professional assistance from outside consultants are both vital to improve its operation. Each of these practices has a distinct, important function: the former strengthens the firm's inner cohesiveness, while the latter provides it with an objective and relevant evaluation. A firm that aspires to excel, should consider applying both practices regularly.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 244, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'firms'' or 'firm's'?
Suggestion: firms'; firm's
... an important tool that may improve the firms operation significantly. For one thin...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 330, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'firms'' or 'firm's'?
Suggestion: firms'; firm's
...give valuable suggestions regarding the firms management. As in any field and every i...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, nevertheless, regarding, second, so, then, while, after all, for one thing, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 58.6224719101 73% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1927.0 2235.4752809 86% => OK
No of words: 353.0 442.535393258 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.45892351275 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33454660006 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9733546949 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 215.323595506 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594900849858 0.4932671777 121% => OK
syllable_count: 603.9 704.065955056 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.3243988026 60.3974514979 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 128.466666667 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5333333333 23.4991977007 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.6 5.21951772744 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => 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: 0.195623454805 0.243740707755 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0658097039997 0.0831039109588 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0568103542227 0.0758088955206 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10914402078 0.150359130593 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0330011174871 0.0667264976115 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.1392134831 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.1639044944 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.47 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.