Involving workers in decision making
Recently, the phenomenon of having staff a role in decision-making and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of decision-making process is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that staff participation in making decision can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, respecting to workers opinion can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that merits of involving staff in management, as well as making correct decision, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the importance decision-making internally. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both helping companies’ future plan and improving roadmap apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of science, using staff suggestions might increase the consequences of companies’ success rate. Moreover, fundamental aspects of companies’ target achievement could relate to this reality that the demerits of involved staff pertain to wrong decision-making. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of staff involvement is correlated negatively with crucial decisions. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of rational decision.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of using staff experiences far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of knowledge management prove the significance of self-confidence workers, but also pinpoint workers job satisfaction implications.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 31.9359605911 110% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.75862068966 208% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1603.0 1207.87684729 133% => OK
No of words: 269.0 242.827586207 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.95910780669 5.00649968141 119% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.57119651308 2.71678728327 131% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 139.433497537 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.665427509294 0.580463131201 115% => OK
syllable_count: 504.0 379.143842365 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.5024630542 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.4025025467 50.4703680194 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.583333333 104.977214359 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4166666667 20.9669160288 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.25397266985 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 2.75862068966 72% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 2.91625615764 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.307124460969 0.242375264174 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0890911539896 0.0925447433944 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0714677354361 0.071462118173 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155922789054 0.151781067708 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0809706076076 0.0609392437508 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 12.6369458128 142% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.77 53.1260098522 45% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 10.9458128079 141% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.58 11.5310837438 152% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.3 8.32886699507 136% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 55.0591133005 203% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.94827586207 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.3980295567 104% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 10.5123152709 171% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 88.8888888889 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 80.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.