All to often, companies hire ouside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary.
In a world of capitalization, competition is the name of the game and is increasing by the day. As organizations increase in size, it becomes harder for managers to effectively bring their organization to the efficient and competitive level that is required to stay ahead of the game. It can be time-consuming and requires a high level of expertise to accurately identify problems within an organization and that is why more and more organizations have been pointing their attention to hiring consultants. The prompt suggests that if companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary. I disagree for three reasons: consultants offer a competitive advantage, objective perspectives and allow employees to focus their energy on their own area of expertise.
To begin, consultants are trained in the science of efficient business operations. This means that they have been trained in more than just business management but the techniques of increasing revenue and the inner workings of conflict management. For example, a consultant can be a competitive advantage because they may have knowledge about other competitors that you do not. To know what every surrounding company is doing would be very difficult in the midst of also trying to increase your own efficiency and effectiveness. It is beneficial to have someone with a degree in industrial/organizational science to offer further insight into how to gain the upper hand in the current climate you are operating in.
Further, this educated consultant offers an objective perspective on something that is very near and dear to the manager's hearts. It is difficult to look at the big picture of something you are so invested in so it is beneficial to have an outside perspective. For example, there could be an interpersonal relationship that are impeding on the organization's efficiency. This conflict could be rooted at the bheavior of the CEO which may coincidentally b the best friend of the manager. Given that the two are friendly and close, it may go right past them that the CEO is actually the problem. A consultant would be able to recognize this and also confront the problem without any direct tension given they have no personal gain or investment beyond reporting what they've gathered.
The statement above implies that inviting a consultant to evaluate business operations oversteps an oppurtunity for the current employee's opinions to be heard. I disagree because an effective consultant should consult with the current employees to hear their side and their opinions. After all, consultants know that no one knows and deals with the consequences of many business decisions more than the employees. The consultant can take all of this information, file it objectively and create a comprhensive conclusion based on the qualitative data collected. Now, employees opinions have been heard but in a way that allows for employees to still invest their energy on their own area of expertise and managers the same.
Overall, by investing in a consultant, the organization is investing in gaining a strong competitive advantage through the third-pary objective perspective and their comprhensive and educated review of the entire business and its operations. By allowing someone to look at the operations from an outside perspective, they can see things as they are and the employees do not have to stop beyond their short consulting meeting with the consultants. This allows for the business to keep moving, which in itself means higher efficiency.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-26 | Arpit Sahni | 58 | view |
| 2020-01-24 | shamitha | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-18 | JENIRSHAH | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-17 | caseya5 | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-14 | Siddiqur Rahman | 50 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 346, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'organizations'' or 'organization's'?
Suggestion: organizations'; organization's
...l relationship that are impeding on the organizations efficiency. This conflict could be root...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 766, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they've
...ain or investment beyond reporting what theyve gathered. The statement above imp...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, if, incidentally, look, may, so, still, third, after all, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 33.0505617978 151% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 83.0 58.6224719101 142% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3015.0 2235.4752809 135% => OK
No of words: 572.0 442.535393258 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27097902098 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89045207381 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20865259713 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 270.0 215.323595506 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472027972028 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 952.2 704.065955056 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.9582909461 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.625 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8333333333 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.75 5.21951772744 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.281539287374 0.243740707755 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.095190669734 0.0831039109588 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.17253994083 0.0758088955206 228% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169396220247 0.150359130593 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.189756915781 0.0667264976115 284% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 100.480337079 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.8971910112 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.