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?
Recently, the phenomenon of involving employees in decision-making policies and its
corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the
matter of organizational growth is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both
constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that
evolutionary development can be a plus, and I will analyze it throughout this essay.
From a social standpoint, taking advantages of the company's staff in making decisions can
provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact that a wider
context, as well as human endeavor, are inextricably bound up. According to my own
experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment, which
discovered the humanitarian needs. Hence beneficial ramifications of both remarkable
phenomenon and structural reforms apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of psychology, interfering employees in the decision-making policies might
increase the consequences of the competitive arena. Moreover, fundamental aspects of basic
rules relate to this reality that the demerits of lower efficiency pertain to spiritual
deterioration. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious
university has asserted that the downside of thorny issues is correlated negatively with crises
management. Thus, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of industrial policy.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe
that the benefits of having company's staff take part in making decisions far outweigh its
drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of technological progress prove the significance of
group work, but also pinpoint financial implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 36, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ich discovered the humanitarian needs. Hence beneficial ramifications of both remark...
^^^^^
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: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 20.9802955665 86% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 31.9359605911 110% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.75862068966 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1588.0 1207.87684729 131% => OK
No of words: 267.0 242.827586207 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.94756554307 5.00649968141 119% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.43383401406 2.71678728327 126% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 139.433497537 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.670411985019 0.580463131201 115% => OK
syllable_count: 501.3 379.143842365 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.6157635468 108% => 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: 44.3461760847 50.4703680194 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.333333333 104.977214359 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.25 20.9669160288 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.25397266985 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 21.0 4.12807881773 509% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.33497536946 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 6.9802955665 100% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 2.75862068966 36% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 2.91625615764 137% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.164203824353 0.242375264174 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0492000634305 0.0925447433944 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.046480802533 0.071462118173 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.038509663469 0.151781067708 25% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0557241368582 0.0609392437508 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 12.6369458128 140% => 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: 17.53 11.5310837438 152% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.29 8.32886699507 136% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 55.0591133005 202% => 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?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
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.