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.
In an office set up, the email is used as the mandatory source of all official correspondence. Form work updates, to client correspondence, to meeting invites, as well as minutes of the meeting etc. are conveyed via the email. The policy of conducting a routine monitoring of all employee e-mail in such a situation will require the employment of a huge amount of resources. Hence, in my opinion it is not required since it will end up being more insolvent than profitable to the company.
Firstly, the routine monitoring of all the employees working in a particular company especially if its a multinational company with thousands of people working there will turn out to be an extremely arduous process. The technology required for this kind of vigilance is expensive and for its implementation it will have to be installed in each individual device that is used in the company which can turn out to be quite laborious. For example, a screen monitoring web application will have to be installed in each desktop or laptop separately. Therefore, instead of this policy reducing the waste of resources of the company it will further drain it out.
The email correspondence application also is used only for sending written pieces of texts between users. It usually has the necessary features for only exchanging information and sending meeting invites. Thus, this software does not really have any attributes of entertainment that can be used to waste time or resources of the company. Also, usually a company's personal email app's features only enable exchanging information between the employees connected to the companies cloud and hence can not be used for any malpractices either. So monitoring such correspondence will usually be a nugatory effort as most employees use email only for official communication while they use other messaging apps like WhatsApp for more personal exchanges.
Monitoring every single email correspondence between every single employee throughout the day can also be an extremely cumbersome process. If every person sends even 10 emails a day (the number will be much more, since all official communication is conveyed through the email only), and there are about 10,000 employees in a particular company, that is 1,00,000 messages that need to be monitored throughout the day. This can be an extremely time consuming process thus leading to the opposite of the intended effect of reducing the wastage of time and system capacity.
Instead of this policy, according to me a more effective policy would be to conduct surprise checks of email correspondence with a certain fine or penalty attached to any malpractices found. This would instill a fear in the employees and cause the intended effect of not using the email for any correspondence that can cause harm to the company or engage it in lawsuits. It would also lead to a reduce in the wastage of resources such as time, system capacity or the costs involved.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 100, Rule ID: IT_IS[17]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...g in a particular company especially if its a multinational company with thousands ...
^^^
Line 2, column 555, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...desktop or laptop separately. Therefore, instead of this policy reducing the wast...
^^
Line 4, column 427, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('extremely') instead an adjective, or a noun ('time') instead of another adjective.
...nitored throughout the day. This can be an extremely time consuming process thus leading to the o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 393, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...e it in lawsuits. It would also lead to a reduce in the wastage of resources such as tim...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, really, so, still, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, kind of, such as, as well as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2463.0 2235.4752809 110% => OK
No of words: 485.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07835051546 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69283662038 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97347182613 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 215.323595506 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455670103093 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 806.4 704.065955056 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2062941315 60.3974514979 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.15 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.25 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.15 5.21951772744 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.83258426966 228% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.250415701235 0.243740707755 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0856071350276 0.0831039109588 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0731993737781 0.0758088955206 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148175391047 0.150359130593 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0326383752219 0.0667264976115 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.8420337079 79% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 100.480337079 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.