Some people think it is good thing for senior management positions to have very high salaries compared to other workers of the same company or organisation. To what extent you agree?
Employees in an organisation earn different pay scale according to their position in hierarchy. Some vehemently claim that it is a favorable practice to provide more pay band at higher level as compared to low grade workers. I firmly reckon with the statement.
The worker of higher ranks hold more expertise as they have greater exposure of particular field. Decision making, policy making and supervision are the main work goals at this grade. Therefore, it is mandatory to pay them more to recognise their abilities. Secondly, more renumeration to departmental heads cultivate motivation among junior staffs to set higher future objectives. For instance, a newly appointed worker puts more efforts to secure their place which could offer promotions and higher salaries in future.
Proceeding further, substitution of a manager is cumbersome task because they are aware of confidential information of a particular workplace. Moreover no organisation can handle the absence of senior personnel as it can adversely affect the smooth flow at work. Last but not the least is that the workers on top hierarchy are efficient at multitasking. Greater the responsibility more should be the revenue so as to positively reinforce them to work from heart.
As there is a weed in every garden, here are also few drawbacks. One of them is that highly paid employees may dominate their subordinates or can also show the sense of superiority which can be detrimental for the environment of workplace.
To conclude, it is undeniable fact that high rank employees should get high revenue but it is equally essential to reward the hardships of low grade workers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 511, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...ld offer promotions and higher salaries in future. Proceeding further, substitution of...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 144, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
... information of a particular workplace. Moreover no organisation can handle the absence ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 409, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...sponsibility more should be the revenue so as to positively reinforce them to work from ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, as to, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1393.0 1615.20841683 86% => OK
No of words: 266.0 315.596192385 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23684210526 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 4.20363070211 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00043573823 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 176.041082164 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.62030075188 0.561755894193 110% => OK
syllable_count: 448.2 506.74238477 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.7656570221 49.4020404114 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.8666666667 106.682146367 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7333333333 20.7667163134 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.46666666667 7.06120827912 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.106176646122 0.244688304435 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0304990940556 0.084324248473 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0255209443753 0.0667982634062 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0541141849571 0.151304729494 36% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00838226966567 0.056905535591 15% => 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: 12.1 13.0946893788 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.4159519038 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.23 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 78.4519038076 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => 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.