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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with these statements and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statements might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
It is no secret that managing a large company is not a one-man (or a one-tiny group) job; it is only natural for people to need help once in a while. The prompt suggests that the need to hire consultants would be diminished if the employees' opinions were taken into consideration instead. While I understand there are limitations to this argument, I strongly agree with this claim for three reasons.
Firstly, the employees of the companies have the firm's best interests at heart. Thus, they have no ulterior motives to improve the status of the firm. For instance, the demographic of a men’s athleisure company would be men who regularly exercise, and are in need of comfortable, yet functional workout-gear. Based on experiences and trends in the athleisure market, employees of this brand may have observed that their compression shorts are an increasingly popular product, and once released, due to their existing demand, will require little to no advertising. And so, it would make sense perhaps to divert resources to advertising their nylon sweat-wicking shirts, or enhancing their quality. A consultant, however, may suggest reallocating resources to more aggressive advertisements for the high-demand compression shorts, simply because his agency receives a large percentage of the revenue from this particular product. Hence, employees are more likely to work for the greater good of their own company.
Secondly, a firm's employees typically know the firm inside-out. Those working in the company are more likely to have a thorough understanding of its inner workings, as opposed to the consultants who have been suddenly introduced. Suppose a make-up brand is considering launching a new mascara- they have released multiple mascaras in the past, and gone through several different formulae to arrive at a product that suits the demands of the public. Previously, they learned that most women are more concerned with lash length than volume, and so have formulated this new mascara accordingly. A consultant, unaware of the company's past inability to sell volumizing mascara, may suggest exactly what caused the previous sales to fail. It would take a considerable amount of time for a consultant to learn about the dynamics of the company, and thus, the time spent on acquiring this knowledge could ultimately be considered wasteful.
Finally, the capital utilized to hire outside consultants could potentially be used to benefit the company elsewhere. If employees are lacking incentive, would a pay raise potentially be more effective at increasing efficiency- that too, at a fraction of the price. Resources may also be used to invest in more Research & Development to ensure that the products or services sold by the company are of the highest quality. Instead of running the risk of wasting resources on a consultant who is not guaranteed to be useful, it may be more worthwhile to support the company from within.
It would be remiss to say that all consulting agencies are cynical and inefficient. In some cases, they may bring about positive changes like a 80% rise in productivity, increased wages for employees, and greater revenues. However, these outcomes are not guaranteed. So, in conclusion, I believe that companies would benefit from listening to their employees rather than hiring consultants. Perhaps if the firm was not required to invest an extravagant amount of the consultant, and the return of investment was guaranteed, then it may be worth considering, but such a gamble may have dire consequences.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 362, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'several'.
Suggestion: several
... mascaras in the past, and gone through several different formulae to arrive at a product that su...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 143, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...y may bring about positive changes like a 80% rise in productivity, increased wag...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, for instance, in conclusion, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 58.6224719101 135% => 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: 2981.0 2235.4752809 133% => OK
No of words: 567.0 442.535393258 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25749559083 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87972968509 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02148736726 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 305.0 215.323595506 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537918871252 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 936.9 704.065955056 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 11.0 1.77640449438 619% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.8278108575 60.3974514979 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.24 118.986275619 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.68 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.28 5.21951772744 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.34059504796 0.243740707755 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0939224690391 0.0831039109588 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0682563854945 0.0758088955206 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193045789672 0.150359130593 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0546531028094 0.0667264976115 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 168.0 100.480337079 167% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => 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.