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.
The author of the statement above argues that hiring external consultants is not the best way to improve the efficience of the employees' work, saying that this problem would be better handled by spending more time listening personally to the workers.
To my mind, I tend to mostly disagree with his opinion for three main reasons and I am going to explain my own view in the next paragraphs.
Firstly, I am strongly convinced that listening to the opinion of all the people who are working in the same company one by one, as the writer seems to have suggested, is an high time-spending activity. In fact, having just one professional external figure who organizes meetings including all the workers is way faster. All this adds to the fact that it is very likely for people who works in the same place to share the same problems and having a high qualified person would be really helpfull to organize people and to solve similiar problems all together.
Moreover, the possibility to get over a shared problem with other workers all together is a team working activity that, nowadays, is even more important in big companies. As a matter of fact, there is not a better way to make people closer than allowing them to help each other in order to solve the same issue. For instance, some little groups of conversation about a particular internal problem could be made and those who think to have the same difficulty could fell free to join in.
Finally, to my mind the strongest point of an outside consultant is his experience. Even if, as the author has suggested, doing internal listening sessions would be way easier for all concerning flexibility, its success would not be garanteed.
To put it in another way: in the most of the cases, specialised external people works in many different companies so this situation helps them to have a heavy background full of casistics and a wider view of the overall situation. For this reason, in my reckon their hiring is an highly appropriate investiment which will improve without any doubts the working athmosphere.
In conclusion, I believe deeply that the hiring of professinal figures as consultants has to be strongly encouraged in every company order to make the working scene more collaborative and relaxed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 172, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
... the writer seems to have suggested, is an high time-spending activity. In fact, h...
^^
Line 4, column 358, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...er. All this adds to the fact that it is very likely for people who works in the ...
^^
Line 9, column 90, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...s, specialised external people works in many different companies so this situation helps them ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 277, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...is reason, in my reckon their hiring is an highly appropriate investiment which wi...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, if, moreover, really, so, as to, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, as a matter of fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 58.6224719101 97% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1886.0 2235.4752809 84% => OK
No of words: 387.0 442.535393258 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87338501292 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7302013037 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 215.323595506 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.529715762274 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 592.2 704.065955056 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.2370786517 64% => 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: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 47.6744383397 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.076923077 118.986275619 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.7692307692 23.4991977007 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.84615384615 5.21951772744 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.97078651685 141% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => 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: 0.277872512694 0.243740707755 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.095699514112 0.0831039109588 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0718484371803 0.0758088955206 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13966067473 0.150359130593 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0773956341679 0.0667264976115 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.1392134831 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.5 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.56 12.1639044944 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 100.480337079 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 11.8971910112 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.7820224719 144% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.