Company management should conduct routine monitoring of all employee e-mail correspondence. Such monitoring will reduce the waste of resources such as time and system capacity, as well as protect the company from lawsuits.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
The statement claims that, company should monitor employee e-mail correspondence and the reason behind that claim is, that will reduce waste of resources and protect the company from lawsuits. While that type assertion may seem tenable from an utilitarian standpoint, but in deeper analysis, I find that type of policy problematic. There can be certain consequences such as employee dissatisfaction, lack of working freedom, which may eventually cause dire consequences.
In today's world, companies hold an utilitarian view and tries to reduce cost as much as they can to maximize their profit. Monitoring employee e-mail correspondence can be justified from the viewpoint that, it will make the company judge it's employees about their working efficiency and thus will able them to reduce cost and waste of system capacity. However, going through employee e-mail can cause some misconceptions among the management team as the information on those e-mail may not make sense all the time to those management people. For example, a person working on the production floor needs extensive knowledge regarding the production process and that's why he may get many e-mail regarding the production capacity and other parameters of the system. But the problem is that, those data and information may be unintelligible to those management people. They can misinterpret an information without having the intrinsic value of that data. Good intentions like reduce waste of resource such as time and system capacity may not always bring the best because without proper knowledge, good intentions can turn out to be something devastating.
Similarly, in deep inside, every person wishes to have some working freedom. By investigating on employee data and e-mail can have some negative consequences like hampering working freedom and eventually which leads to employee dissatisfaction. With a dissatisfied employee pool, company can hope a very little good from them.
On the other hand, there should be some provision to routine monitor employee performance and e-mail correspondence and employees should be trained on that issue. Without any type of monitoring, sometimes individual employee can create a hodgepodge in the system. Again, there can be some inefficient employees, who should be monitored. Apart from this, every employee should be given enough freedom to work and monitoring should be minimized as low as possible.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 242, 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
...at type assertion may seem tenable from an utilitarian standpoint, but in deeper a...
^^
Line 3, column 33, 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
...ces. In todays world, companies hold an utilitarian view and tries to reduce co...
^^
Line 3, column 660, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...ge regarding the production process and thats why he may get many e-mail regarding th...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, regarding, similarly, so, thus, while, apart from, for example, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.4196629213 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2050.0 2235.4752809 92% => OK
No of words: 374.0 442.535393258 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.48128342246 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.55969084622 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99041908575 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 215.323595506 89% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510695187166 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 635.4 704.065955056 90% => 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
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.1725051878 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.588235294 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.64705882353 5.21951772744 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.308122543335 0.243740707755 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0993458539822 0.0831039109588 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.095250434554 0.0758088955206 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193684340658 0.150359130593 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.071936740721 0.0667264976115 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.1392134831 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 100.480337079 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.