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.
Nowadays the overwhelming majority of companies and organizations implements various motivational mechanisms and techniques. With this regards, it is believed by many that one of the most efficient tools to motivate employees is to tie their salaries to the result they make. In my opinion, the result-based payroll system is indeed one of the most advantageous ones, since it is perceived to be transparent and can encourage the staff to be as productive as possible.
First of all, production or sales-based salary can be more preferable, since the employees know exactly how the money earned has been formed. In this case, the worker knows how much they will get paid for each unit produced of sold and, therefore, will be more likely to trust the organization they work for. This ca result in a better performance by the staff and can benefit both the employees and the company. From my own experience, I can tell that I am more motivated to be efficient at work, when I know my performance is assessed and rewarded.
Secondly, the discussed approach might enable people to increase their productivity, should they tend to earn more. The reason behind this is the fact that the greater amount one produces or realizes, the higher their salary will be. Since human beings constantly wish to improve the quality of their lives, they will work more efficiently knowing there is a direct interrelation between their performance and the reward. Organizations that used to operate within the Soviet Union would widely apply the above-mentioned method, which has proven to increase their efficiency by up to 25%, compared to current business, as reported by The Russian Information Agency in August 2018.
To conclude, I agree to those, who claim that motivating people by means of paying them in accordance with their performance is one of the most efficient methods. The reason for that is the transparency and the fairness of such a technique, as well as the fact of connection between one’s performance and salary.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 131, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ational mechanisms and techniques. With this regards, it is believed by many that on...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, as well as, first of all, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 24.0651302605 137% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1697.0 1615.20841683 105% => OK
No of words: 335.0 315.596192385 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06567164179 5.12529762239 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94213292273 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555223880597 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 526.5 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 6.0 2.10420841683 285% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 39.4328130567 49.4020404114 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.538461538 106.682146367 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7692307692 20.7667163134 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.53846153846 7.06120827912 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 3.9879759519 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.141582144061 0.244688304435 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0517830832364 0.084324248473 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0357955948064 0.0667982634062 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0884653377383 0.151304729494 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.012951654453 0.056905535591 23% => 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: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 50.2224549098 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.3001002004 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.4159519038 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 10.7795591182 139% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.