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 issue of whether the management of a company should conduct routine monitoring of all employee e-mail correspondence is complex and controversial. Indisputably, systematic monitoring will propel to identify the wrongdoings of the employees. Thereby, protecting the company from millions of dollars of lawsuits. Nonetheless, the constant observation of the emails may not be welcomed by some of the employees. Both perspectives are important, however, the positives of tracking employee emails definitely out weighs the negatives.
For a large organisation which is involved in dealings of millions of dollars, any error made by the employee can result in a lawsuit causing the company to lose out on large amounts of money. As well as, losing the faith of its customers. Subsequently, due to one single error, the company can suffer a significant loss. Email tracking will propel the management to ensure that all emails exchanged between the employees and the clients are not unseemly but following the rules and regulations of the organisation.
Secondly, the company can save out on valuable resources by ensuring adequate tracking of the emails. Consider a situation in which the employees of the company are using the emails, to share data which is not relevant to the organisation. Such sharing of data can seriously hamper the overall performance of the IT architecture and causing a slowdown in the network. When the employees are made aware of tracking there will restraint themselves from sharing files and attachments which is not relevant to the organisation.
However, on the contrary, employees can perceive the means of tracking as a means of constant supervision. This suspicion may not be welcomed by some of the employees leading to internecine and defraying the organisation away from its goals. However, the employees must be explained the benefits of tracking and how its safeguards their interest as well by ensuring that emails not keeping in standard with the organisation are not circulated to the clients. As a result protecting the employees.
Although, the proposal for the management has certain drawbacks, one cannot dispute the positives of the proposal. If the proposal can be implemented taking the employees into confidence, it can act as a base on which the roadmap of the future of the company can be laid. Nonetheless, without widespread acceptance of the proposal, it will lead to huge debates. Subsequently, jeopardising the whole purpose of the proposal.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 391, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...on of the emails may not be welcomed by some of the employees. Both perspectives are import...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 310, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'IT'?
Suggestion: the; IT
...ously hamper the overall performance of the IT architecture and causing a slowdown in ...
^^^^^^
Line 13, column 146, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
.... This suspicion may not be welcomed by some of the employees leading to internecine and de...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 460, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...tion are not circulated to the clients. As a result protecting the employees. ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, well, as a result, as well as, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 33.0505617978 33% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2123.0 2235.4752809 95% => OK
No of words: 396.0 442.535393258 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36111111111 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46091344257 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14274854734 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 215.323595506 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.462121212121 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 656.1 704.065955056 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.9869475773 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.095238095 118.986275619 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8571428571 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95238095238 5.21951772744 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.257315892748 0.243740707755 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0743690465128 0.0831039109588 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0736783463515 0.0758088955206 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140541269626 0.150359130593 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0777290834592 0.0667264976115 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 100.480337079 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => 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.