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.
The claim suggests that company management should routinely monitor email correspondences of employees, which would help in reducing waste resources, and would also protect company from lawsuits. This position seems plausible as it has several positive outcomes, however it also has several implications which need critical analysis. Routine monitoring would help secure the company and their operations, but would increase the feeling of hostility amongst the employees.
Routine monitoring will most certainly help with reducing wastage of resources. Casual email exchange often result into use capacity for redundant usage. Most often, fellow employees can exchange casual conversation with each other for entertainment, which is often a negative for productivity directly. Since, company is paying the employees for their work and productivity, they are expected to be productive rather than engage in online banter. Hence, routine monitoring would help in reducing wastage of resources.
Routine monitoring is also essential in curbing loss of security because of actions taken by employees. Employees can, with naivety and ignorance, access spams, and download harmful softwares. Routinely monitoring emails would definitely help curtain any such problem. In addition to that, it would also help in reducing collusion by any employee for his own benefit. There can be several incidences of security breaches in company data, which can be detrimental to the company as whole. Hence, routine monitoring would help reduce any possibility of security breaches.
However, routine monitoring of emails would elicit hostile feelings from the employee body. A company hiring employees is surely paying them for their work, skills, and productivity, but not for strict control and monitoring company management would be signaling by implementing such policy. As, routine email check impinges on employees right of freedom of speech and privacy, it is just for employees to feel alienated towards company management. These feelings can be detrimental for the company in the long term, hence such policy implementation shall be avoided.
In addition to that, casual conversations are part of human social behavior which enhances the bonding between them. Routine email check would inhibit such conversations, and bonding between different employees can be severed. It would decrease the overall productivity of the company, as bonding between different employees and departments is necessary for company as whole. Also, not being about to voice their concerns due to privacy considerations can increase overall unhappiness or discontent in employees. As, a happy employee is a productive employee, this policy can prove to be detrimental.
To sum it up, the policy is bound to produce good results in short term, however considering the dynamics of social structure of employees in the company and lack of privacy can result into overall decrease in productivity. These consequences of such policy shall be understood and policy shall not be impliemented.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, so, in addition, in short
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.4196629213 217% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2605.0 2235.4752809 117% => OK
No of words: 459.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67538126362 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92991469364 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 215.323595506 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.477124183007 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 815.4 704.065955056 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => 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: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.6877672034 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.2 118.986275619 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.36 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.24 5.21951772744 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.277123531463 0.243740707755 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0934887701802 0.0831039109588 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.077320864357 0.0758088955206 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159846488531 0.150359130593 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0693486703249 0.0667264976115 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 48.8420337079 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.66 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 100.480337079 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => 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.