In companies, promotions to high positions should be given to employees inside the company and not to somebody outside the company or new hiring. Do you agree or disagree with this view
Today every organization complete to become the top performer. To achieve this, they require the best person to run the company. Few people say that to fill the top position in an organization it's better to hire a new talent from outside whereas, other few people argue that in-house employees are best to do this job. I agree that an inside employee will be a better option than an outsider.
Firstly, it is important for higher level position employee to know what talent his colleague brings to the firm. This knowledge can be ascertained only if the person had previously worked with those staffs. In fact, this can help him to decide who is the best person to head each department. For example, when Sundar Pichai became the CEO of Google his first task was to restructure his department heads. Since he was already employed with Google in you who had the best of talent among all employees. In order to work as a team, it is important to know what talent their subordinates have.
Secondly, every company has a different work culture. A new employee takes time to adapt to the new work culture and other aspects of an organization. Whereas, an in-house employee is already accustomed to the company policies and culture. Even the best of talents fail to perform when their work environment changes. For example, Nokia had hired a new CEO who had tons of experience and great talent. Even though he was the best of talents he could not adjust to the new work culture and had resigned immediately. In such a scenario, if an insider was selected to this post such complications could have been avoided since he is fully aware of companies’ culture and policies.
To conclude, recruiting an individual for the top position is an imperative decision. Each company has different culture and talents, an internal staff would be aware of these and will handle the responsibilities better.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 407, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” 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.
...as to restructure his department heads. Since he was already employed with Google in ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, whereas, as to, for example, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 24.0651302605 108% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1577.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 326.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83742331288 5.12529762239 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73313571983 2.80592935109 97% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 176.041082164 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521472392638 0.561755894193 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 495.9 506.74238477 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.4432996821 49.4020404114 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.0 106.682146367 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1578947368 20.7667163134 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.10526315789 7.06120827912 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.67935871743 150% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.187525771648 0.244688304435 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0577684973199 0.084324248473 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0436862292499 0.0667982634062 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112007931233 0.151304729494 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0318026649747 0.056905535591 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 13.0946893788 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 50.2224549098 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.3001002004 77% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.4159519038 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.87 8.58950901804 92% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 78.4519038076 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 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.