Many companies involve employees in decision-making policy. Some people think that it is important for the progression of the company. To what extent do you agree or disagree.
The participation and involvement of employees in the decision-making process of organization is a real risk and on the other hand, promotes company’s growth. So whether to involve employees in decision making by company’s leading authorities is arguable. The argument has both sides which I will discuss further in this essay.
Within decision-making process, sensitive financial data and information are shared with the participants. When the company involves employees in such process, it makes them feel trustworthy and being treated fairly. They treat themselves as an essential asset for the organization. Such feelings lead to enhanced performance and improved productivity. The employee who voices in leading authorities discussion feel secure and in turn significant commitment towards the organization.
The fear of inconsistent decision making dramatically increases by involving employee suggestions or ideas to take any decisions. Top level authorities or managers face a hard time monitoring negative communication and attitude among employees. When there are many voices in top-level decision making, there is potential for chaos. Also, there are some secrets in an organization that is meant for are reserved for management levels should not be revealed to everyone. Such activities promote sharing of company’s valuable information which increases the risk of data getting leaked. It can prove dangerous for the well-being of an organization.
To conclude, the consistent decision making is critical to brand recognition and consistency. Allowing employees to share their ideas and make decisions have more of advantage for an organization so steps should be taken to ensure compatibility of choice. More of employees involvement will result in the increased output and thereby in company’s growth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 389, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authorities'' or 'authority's'?
Suggestion: authorities'; authority's
...ity. The employee who voices in leading authorities discussion feel secure and in turn sign...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, so, well, as to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.5418719212 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 8.36945812808 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 5.94088669951 101% => OK
Pronoun: 9.0 20.9802955665 43% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 31.9359605911 103% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 5.75862068966 295% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1576.0 1207.87684729 130% => OK
No of words: 269.0 242.827586207 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.85873605948 5.00649968141 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.40822660975 2.71678728327 125% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 139.433497537 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.602230483271 0.580463131201 104% => OK
syllable_count: 491.4 379.143842365 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.6157635468 65% => OK
Article: 5.0 1.56157635468 320% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 1.71428571429 117% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.931034482759 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 3.65517241379 55% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 12.6551724138 134% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 20.5024630542 73% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.1100633834 50.4703680194 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 92.7058823529 104.977214359 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.8235294118 20.9669160288 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.58823529412 7.25397266985 36% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 6.9802955665 129% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 2.75862068966 254% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 2.91625615764 34% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.243395743101 0.242375264174 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0829069519109 0.0925447433944 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0608910958135 0.071462118173 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163021640204 0.151781067708 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0281090619229 0.0609392437508 46% => 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: 14.1 12.6369458128 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.33 53.1260098522 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.54236453202 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.9458128079 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.41 11.5310837438 142% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.49 8.32886699507 114% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 55.0591133005 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.94827586207 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.3980295567 77% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.5123152709 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 77.7777777778 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 70.0 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.