Some employers reward members of staff for their exceptional contribute to the company by giving them extra money. This practical can act as an incentive for some but may be also have a negative impact on others.
To what extend is this style of management effective?
Are better ways of encouraging employees to work hard?
It is true that employee’s endeavor for their company should be compensated with money. However, this way also has negative effects on other staffs. My essay will dig deeper into this topic and gives some suggestions to improve management’s means.
To begin, there are two reasons why giving extra money is a straightforward way to increase employee’s productivity. Obviously, everyone joins in the work because of salary to live and take care of their family. They dig into working to save money for their child’s tuition, doctor’s bills, subsistence expenses….So more money they is paid, more problems they can deal. By this way, when employee’s life is assured, they will pay more attention in their work. Alternatively, the employers can’t give their stave anything else as a reward because they can’t know exactly what each wants. For instance, one company has policy that they will give to a hard employees three pairs of shoes which he and his colleagues are producing. Meanwhile, right now, he needs money to pay for his monthly gale. In short, money is far more practical than others.
Despite those reasons mentioned above, money is not the best way to encourage working’s spirit, even it has negative effects on other staffs. In fact, the reward is always limited, gave to the greatest one. Because of that, the others think they would never reach it, and then, they don’t attempt or feel bored with their work. And certainly, the production as well as management is not effective.
In my opinion, the success of company is reliant on all of the members. So instead of an individual person, the employers should reward all as a team with money. To illustrate, in one team has a man who has an amazing idea to improve quality of product. The money will be divided to two parts, 60% for him and 40% for the others in this team. It is believed that this means will be enhanced as well as teamwork’s spirit will be developed.
In conclusion, giving money to employees as a reward contains both advantages and disadvantages to every company. However, this is still useful way to encourage the staffs. I believed that it will be true, if we apply it reasonably.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 314, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: So
..., doctor’s bills, subsistence expenses….So more money they is paid, more problems ...
^^
Line 2, column 333, Rule ID: NON3PRS_VERB[2]
Message: The pronoun 'they' must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb: 'be'
Suggestion: be
...ubsistence expenses….So more money they is paid, more problems they can deal. By t...
^^
Line 2, column 655, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'employee'?
Suggestion: employee
...as policy that they will give to a hard employees three pairs of shoes which he and his c...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 399, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...as well as management is not effective. In my opinion, the success of company is...
^^^
Line 4, column 53, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...n, the success of company is reliant on all of the members. So instead of an individual pe...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, so, still, then, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, in short, as well as, in my opinion, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 24.0651302605 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1824.0 1615.20841683 113% => OK
No of words: 373.0 315.596192385 118% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89008042895 5.12529762239 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39467950092 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74376055985 2.80592935109 98% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.54691689008 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 547.2 506.74238477 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 5.43587174349 184% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.76152304609 210% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 16.0721442886 143% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 20.2975951904 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.1819310234 49.4020404114 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.3043478261 106.682146367 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2173913043 20.7667163134 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.82608695652 7.06120827912 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.01903807615 100% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.67935871743 184% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.311338194542 0.244688304435 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0849050735733 0.084324248473 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0531728271216 0.0667982634062 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176757527561 0.151304729494 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0770472048254 0.056905535591 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.7 13.0946893788 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 50.2224549098 127% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.3001002004 74% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.4159519038 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.58950901804 90% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 78.4519038076 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.1190380762 83% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.7795591182 74% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.