One of the best methods to motivate and encourage workers is to pay them according to what they produce or sell. Do you think this is the best method? Give relevant examples from your experience.
These days, most countries show great concern about the problems related to the salary of employees. One of the controversial questions is whether paying workers relies on the number of products they make or sell is the optimal method to motivate them. From my point of view, I remain unconvinced that this is the best measure to encourage them.
To begin with, it is undisputed that using this method can increase the productivity of a company and foster economic growth. This is because, if employees want to earn more money, they will work harder. This is shown by the following example. Through the Stalinist period which started in 1927, most Soviet workers had been paid for their work based on a piece-rate system, which means their individual wages were directly tied to the amount of product they produced. As a consequence of this measure, the industrial output of the Soviet Union in 1937 increased 4.5 times compared to 1927. Moreover, this figure accounted for 77.4% of the total natural economic production. Therefore, this method of paying salary is beneficial in this case.
On the other hand, this wage method can result in low-quality goods in many companies. To clarify, the more salary they want to receive, the more commodities they try to produce as fast as possible. That leads to the fact that workers tend to cut corners illegally to produce as much as they can. Take my uncle’s factory as an example. In 2018, one month after this method was applied, it was obvious that the number of products drastically went up. Nevertheless, when being censored, it turned out that 63.4% of the total products in that month could not meet the standard of consumers. For this reason, this measure is not the most effective way to motivate workers.
Given the aforementioned points, it may be concluded that paying salary depends on their products is a double-edged sword because it can increase productivity but make the low-quality product. Consequently, on the balance of probabilities, I disagree that this is the most suitable way to motivate employees.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
These days, most countries show great co...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, therefore, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 24.0651302605 179% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1730.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 347.0 315.596192385 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9855907781 5.12529762239 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73651420517 2.80592935109 98% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 176.041082164 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547550432277 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 520.2 506.74238477 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 5.43587174349 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.7823916722 49.4020404114 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.0526315789 106.682146367 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2631578947 20.7667163134 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.21052631579 7.06120827912 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.252434499924 0.244688304435 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0782238031262 0.084324248473 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0713672383461 0.0667982634062 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161395949807 0.151304729494 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0875545776457 0.056905535591 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.0946893788 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 50.2224549098 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.3001002004 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.4159519038 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.58950901804 99% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 78.4519038076 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.