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 numbers 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 the 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.
According to the passage and lecture, they both discuss about team projects. The passage points out that doing new projects within a team is better while the lecture refutes this idea by giving three facts which are the disadvantages of doing team projects.
First of all, the passage introduces the idea that a group of people consist of a wider range of knowledge, expertise, and skills than a single person will possess. Moreover, the efficiency will likely be higher and more creative solutions will be presented. However, the lecture rebutted with its second point that it will take a long time for agreements which need meetings.
In addition, the passage continues to the second point that a team will likely take risks in order to make better solutions since everyone shares the responsibility. On the other side, the lecture explains its first idea that some people may just get a free ride through the project without contributing any effort while the real contributors will not be recognized.
Lastly, the passage goes on to its last point that it can be rewarding for the members who show up and gives ideas because they can be highly recognized when the overall results are far-reaching while the lecture present its idea that the work influencers brought up with can be wrong, but they still promote others to support it. This will end up as everyone to be blamed.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, lastly, may, moreover, second, so, still, while, in addition, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1153.0 1373.03311258 84% => OK
No of words: 235.0 270.72406181 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90638297872 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91531732006 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54749008815 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.578723404255 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 351.0 419.366225166 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 80.0464371397 49.2860985944 162% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.111111111 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1111111111 21.698381199 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5555555556 7.06452816374 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.12252808814 0.272083759551 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0577593657984 0.0996497079465 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0673017684529 0.0662205650399 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0828591491914 0.162205337803 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0483004442555 0.0443174109184 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 51.0 63.6247240618 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, lastly, may, moreover, second, so, still, while, in addition, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1153.0 1373.03311258 84% => OK
No of words: 235.0 270.72406181 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90638297872 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91531732006 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54749008815 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 145.348785872 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.578723404255 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 351.0 419.366225166 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 26.0 21.2450331126 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 80.0464371397 49.2860985944 162% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.111111111 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1111111111 21.698381199 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5555555556 7.06452816374 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.12252808814 0.272083759551 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0577593657984 0.0996497079465 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0673017684529 0.0662205650399 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0828591491914 0.162205337803 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0483004442555 0.0443174109184 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 51.0 63.6247240618 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.498013245 118% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.