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.
A friend of mine who works in the automobile industry recently said she believes that companies overuse outside consulting services. "It is unnecessary," she says. "Companies can handle issues relating to efficiency, productivity, and cost minimization themselves." She also highlighted that bringing consultants to a company is "counterproductive," as it serves as an opportunity cost for senior managers. They could spend that time toward "listening to their own employees." After listening closely and intently to her argument, I reacted that outside consultants suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently because they introduce creative ideas senior staff would not have thought of otherwise.
When I worked for a small business located near Ithaca, they brought in a local consulting service for a day. They asked all the employees to come in that same day. The consultants surveyed us on a myriad of issues hurdling company success, including organizational communication, technology, and compensation. By the end of the day, they compiled a report on the company's "culture," on which they based several recommendations. Soon thereafter, my managers changed company policy, and the results were immediate. Employees were more comfortable being honest with one another, I could express my unsatisfaction more easily and freely than previously, and my managers were more open to feedback. If efficiency includes the idea of "positive organizational culture," then consulting surely improves efficiency.
Economics states that as output increases, costs per unit decrease. Economists base this claim on a concept known as increasing returns to scale, which argues that if a company were to increase its inputs, the output would increase by more than that increase. Because inputs increase at a lower rate than the increase in output, costs per unit accordingly decrease. However, it is simplistic to believe that all CEOs, especially the one I worked for would know how to execute this effectively. Bringing in a consultant, who understands economic theory and how to implement it in the workplace, can bring about economics of scale. This would yield the efficiency that my friend of mine mentioned, and it does not seem like much of an opportunity cost to me. In fact, not bringing in a consultant would be the opportunity cost.
Most importantly, consultants come from all job functions and industries, and, as a result, they introduce different perspectives that senior managers need. Dan, who is a senior manager at AT&T in the sales department, has been in the industry for ten years. He knows how to manage accounts, identify customer needs, and determine what new customers want. However, does he know how to identify if an employee he is interviewing has those skills and can do the same? Consultants can work with Dan, teaching interviewing skills that will help him notice the right behavior in candidates. Dan will soon become an expert in talent acquisition, with no need for consultants.
I'd like to believe the following: "If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary." However, such a belief is idealistic and, therefore, unrealistic. How can we expect that corporations, which often assigns HR to the role of administrative tasks like payroll and benefits, will suddenly spend more time listening to their own employees? If we truly want to see such happen, we need to show corporations how effective consultants can be. Then, they will introduce internal consulting. Then, my friend can come back and say that (outside) consultants would be unnecessary.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 157, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...ulting services. 'It is unnecessary,' she says. 'Companies can handle i...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 373, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
... to a company is 'counterproductive,' as it serves as an opportunity cost fo...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 387, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...d a report on the companys 'culture,' on which they based several recommenda...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 778, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...of 'positive organizational culture,' then consulting surely improves effici...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: I'd
...ition, with no need for consultants. Id like to believe the following: 'If...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, however, if, so, then, therefore, in fact, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.4196629213 185% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 11.3162921348 186% => OK
Pronoun: 60.0 33.0505617978 182% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3156.0 2235.4752809 141% => OK
No of words: 577.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46967071057 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90110439584 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.48562410983 2.79657885939 125% => OK
Unique words: 302.0 215.323595506 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523396880416 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 977.4 704.065955056 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 17.0 6.24550561798 272% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 61.3368702559 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.827586207 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8965517241 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.51724137931 5.21951772744 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 5.13820224719 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.353225949749 0.243740707755 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.085342773479 0.0831039109588 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0883832130731 0.0758088955206 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.200046677764 0.150359130593 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.108684917005 0.0667264976115 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 159.0 100.480337079 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.