In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team. Having a team of people attack a project offers several advantages. First of all, a group of people has a wider range of knowledge, expertise, and skills than any single individual is likely to possess. Also, because of the number of people involved and the greater resources they possess, a group can work more quickly in response to the task assigned to it and can come up with highly creative solutions to problems and issues. Sometimes these creative solutions come about because a group is more likely to make risky decisions that an individual might not undertake. This is because the group spreads responsibility for a decision to all the members and thus no single individual can be held accountable if the decision turns out to be wrong.
Taking part in a group process can be very rewarding for members of the team. Team members who have a voice in making a decision will no doubt feel better about carrying out the work that is entailed by that decision than they might doing work that is imposed on them by others. Also, the individual team member has a much better chance to "shine," to get his or her contributions and ideas not only recognized but recognized as highly significant, because a team's overall results can be more far-reaching and have greater impact than what might have otherwise been possible for the person to accomplish or contribute working alone.
The article states that working on projects as a team has notable and far-reaching advantages, and provides some reasons for support. However, the professor illustrates what happens when working in teams, using a company's experience as an example, and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that working as a team brings about a broader range of knowledge, expertise, and skills. The professor refutes this point by saying that some team members do nothing on the project. He states that they do not contribute at all to the project, yet, they benefit from the team's recognition.
Furthermore, the article posits that working as a team creates a quicker response to the task and more creative solutions. However, the professor says that some projects did not more quickly as it took numerous meetings and even longer time to reach a consensus. According to the professor, some members become influencers that dictate the pace and decide the direction the team will go even when other members think otherwise.
Finally, the reading says that individual member feels highly significant and satisfied as team results are always enormous. The professor discredits this point. He revealed that group members who offer enormously to the projects always feel unfulfilled as the praise is given to the group as a whole which includes non-responsible members. The professor further stated that when the project fails, the blame goes to everyone.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 297, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teams'' or 'team's'?
Suggestion: teams'; team's
...the project, yet, they benefit from the teams recognition. Furthermore, the articl...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 2.0 10.4613686534 19% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 16.0 30.3222958057 53% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1236.0 1373.03311258 90% => OK
No of words: 235.0 270.72406181 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25957446809 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91531732006 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7403858858 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.587234042553 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 367.2 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.8543492081 49.2860985944 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.0 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5833333333 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.08333333333 7.06452816374 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.16711894256 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0632415849924 0.0996497079465 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0413694667718 0.0662205650399 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105357263781 0.162205337803 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0460902181152 0.0443174109184 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.