You have three minutes to read the following passage and take notes.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 that 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.
Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.
(Professor) Now I want to tell you about what one company found when it decided that it would turn over some of its new projects to teams of people, and make the team responsible for planning the projects and getting the work done. After about six months, the company took a look at how well the teams performed. On virtually every team, some members got almost a “free ride” … they didn’t contribute much at all, but if their team did a good job, they nevertheless benefited from the recognition the team got. And what about group members who worked especially well and who provided a lot of insight on problems and issues? Well…the recognition for a job well done went to the group as a whole, no names were named. So it won’t surprise you to learn that when the real contributors were asked how they felt about the group process, their attitude was just the opposite of what the reading predicts. Another finding was that some projects just didn’t move very quickly. Why? Because it took so long to reach consensus…it took many, many meetings to build the agreement among group members about how they would move the project along. On the other hand, there were other instances where one or two people managed to become very influential over what their group did. Sometimes when those influencers said “That will never work” about an idea the group was developing, the idea was quickly dropped instead of being further discussed. And then there was another occasion when a couple influencers convinced the group that a plan of theirs was “highly creative.” And even though some members tried to warn the rest of the group that the project was moving in directions that might not work, they were basically ignored by other group members. Can you guess the ending to *this* story? When the project failed, the blame was placed on all the members of the group.
Directions
You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response. Your response will be judged on the basis of the quality of your writing and on how well your response presents the points in the lecture and their relationship to the reading passage. Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words.
Summarize the points made in the lecture you just heard, explaining how they cast doubt on points made in the reading.
The lecture talks about the team work and the benefits received when the different minds come together and brainstorm for a particular project. On the other hand, professor takes a real life example and concludes that the being in a group has lot more disadvantages than it is relatively discussed in the lecture.
First of all the lecture talks about the diversity of knowledge, expertise, and skills that would help an the team to arrive at ab better and creative solution while on the other hand, professor refutes this point by suggesting that such diversity can lead to conflicts in the group and arriving at a common integrated conclusion might be difficult.
Second, the lecture specifies that the reward of the good work done by the team will be shared by all the group members, irrespective of the amount of contributions they make. Professor refutes this statement and tries to explain the human behavior. According to him, reward should be proportional to the amount of work contributed by a member, because if same reward is shared irrespective of their contributions, then first it demoralizes the person who had put in so much effort to make the project a success, and secondly it will encourage other torpor people not to work hard as they will receive the same bonus irrespectively.
Third, it would be really nice for the person whose decision would be considered and that the team all together would benefit from his smart ideas, but professor tries to emphasize on the realistic fact that the same person might become an influencer of the group, and might ignore some crucial decisions made by other group members.
Thus, I would like to conclude by saying that professor enlightened the readers by specifying the reality because the theoretical sayings never takes the human behavior into consideration.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-14 | Md Lutfor Rahman | 73 | view |
| 2020-01-03 | dew2222 | 65 | view |
| 2019-12-30 | supergirl20 | 76 | view |
| 2019-12-05 | mbabar | 80 | view |
| 2019-11-21 | souvik20 | 83 | view |
- Recent incursions by deep-sea fishermen into the habitat of the Madagascan shrimp have led to a significant reduction in the species population. With the breeding season fast approaching, the number of shrimp should soon begin to increase. Nonetheless, th 46
- Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In dev 83
- Those who see their ideas through, regardless of doubts or criticism others may express, are the ones who tend to leave a lasting legacy.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your re 83
- You have three minutes to read the following passage and take notes.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 advantag 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 104, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
..., expertise, and skills that would help an the team to arrive at ab better and cre...
^^
Line 5, column 104, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'an' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: an; the
..., expertise, and skills that would help an the team to arrive at ab better and creativ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, really, second, secondly, so, then, third, thus, while, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1540.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 304.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06578947368 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17559525986 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78621333795 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546052631579 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 471.6 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.23620309051 24% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => 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: 38.0 21.2450331126 179% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 105.180796726 49.2860985944 213% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 192.5 110.228320801 175% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.0 21.698381199 175% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.875 7.06452816374 182% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 4.45695364238 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0960144141221 0.272083759551 35% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0437905690204 0.0996497079465 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.022734009675 0.0662205650399 34% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0537808614799 0.162205337803 33% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0209585912584 0.0443174109184 47% => 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: 21.4 13.3589403974 160% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.91 53.8541721854 61% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.1 11.0289183223 164% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.72 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 10.7273730684 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.2 10.498013245 164% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.2008830022 170% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.