Some employers reward members of staff for their exceptional contributions to the company by giving them extra money. this practice can act as an incentive for some, but may also have a negative impact on others.
To what extent is this style of management effective?
Are there better ways of encouraging employees to work hard?
Employer morale is an important part of operating business that every employee has to be aware of. In modern office, giving bonus in form of money for significant contributor has become a widely accepted strategy to ensure a positive working attitude. However, this approach may draw unwanted discontent from others. In order to verify this and finding an alternative method, further investigation will be conducted.
On the one hand, money bonus can be a great source of motivation. First of all, bonus improves job satisfaction which also serves as an effective way to keep crucial staff member in the organisation. Secondly, if there is no bonus for top performer, there will be no competition between employees which will only discourage staffs from surpassing their former self. At some point, company will be treading water and eventually will be outperformed by rival business.
On the other hand, extra money is not ideal especially in multidisciplinary company. It is easier to single out top contributor from sales department by simply looking at sale figures. This is not the case with other departments such as Research and Development department where contribution is not quantity hence immeasurable. The reward for this type of department is normally handed for the entire team. This will not allow company to target truly hard working and outstanding individual.
An alternate policy which can also boost morale is to improve employee's fame by awarding title of "employee of the month" and "employee of the year". This can be done through anonymous voting system or collecting feedback and rating from customers to ensure equality between staff. This type of policy is highly effective in hospitality and service industry.
In conclusion, the practice of rewarding to exceptional employee can brings more goods than harms. This is why this form of practice is exercised extensively in a variety of industries.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
In modern office,
In a modern office,
In modern offices,
In order to verify this and finding an alternative method, further investigation will be conducted.
In order to verify this and find an alternative method, further investigation will be conducted. //parallel
to keep crucial staff member in the organisation
to keep crucial staff members in the organisation
in multidisciplinary company.
in a multidisciplinary company.
in multidisciplinary companies.
can brings more goods than harms
can bring more goods than harms
flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
Double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 7.0 out of 9
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 308 350
No. of Characters: 1582 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.189 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.136 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.888 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 117 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 86 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.111 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.829 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.389 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.27 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.027 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 70, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'bring'
Suggestion: bring
...f rewarding to exceptional employee can brings more goods than harms. This is why this...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, as to, in conclusion, such as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 41.998997996 110% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 8.3376753507 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1649.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 308.0 315.596192385 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3538961039 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06155403157 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.603896103896 0.561755894193 108% => OK
syllable_count: 525.6 506.74238477 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.4572368236 49.4020404114 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.6111111111 106.682146367 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1111111111 20.7667163134 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.38888888889 7.06120827912 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.271988400386 0.244688304435 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0799567485876 0.084324248473 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0417372162906 0.0667982634062 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141905672682 0.151304729494 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0298513473872 0.056905535591 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.0946893788 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 50.2224549098 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.45 12.4159519038 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.58950901804 107% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.