All too often, companies hire outside 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.
The prompt suggests a binary decision between trusting the experts -- the outside companies that specialize in maximizing efficiency -- and listening to its own employees. This is a false dichotomy. The reality is that companies should both consult experts and pay more heed to the ground-level insight from their employees.
Consulting companies exist for a reason. They are designed to do one thing only and to do it well; they find inefficiencies in businesses and help companies maximize efficiencies. There are, almost universally, high-level problems, fundamental failures of structure, incentives, or implementation within companies. A good consultant should be excellent in analyzing all the data and finding the best way for a company to improve its performance by fixing those issues.
Just because someone works in a field doesn't make them experts on everything related to it. Would you trust an airplane mechanic to fly your plane, or a pilot to maintain it? No, you would not. The same rule applies here. Surely mechanics and pilots both offer valuable insight the same way that both consultants and employees do too.
Employees have their own perspectives that consultants might be unable to recognize themselves. While a consultant might be able to look at the company's operations and see that one specific task is redundant and that eliminating that redundancy will save the company significant amounts of money, employees are more likely to see things that wouldn't be represented in the company's data or that aren't easily apparent to an outside observer.
For example, I used to work in a bank. Our bank had incentives and competitions to sign people up for checking accounts. In theory, this was a great idea that management thought would encourage the company's continuing growth. In practice, this led to a lot of borderline fraudulent behavior from employees. Many branches would openly sign up friends and family for accounts; people that had no intention of actually using their accounts or being profitable customers for the bank in any way. The incentives remained misaligned, however, while the bad actors continued to be rewarded. Had anyone in management above the branch level talked to me, they quickly would have realized that their system was not working as they had intended it to. A consulting group could have missed that.
For any company to have the best chance of success, they should be willing to take good ideas from any source available. Employees can have some great ideas and great feedback, but most companies' employees won't understand the financial realities, broad goals, or any part of the company that doesn't directly affect them. Consultants, on the other hand, might not catch every implementation problem that employees witness, but they are trained professionals, and the good ones continue to get contracts with companies for a reason. Only by fully utilizing both sources can a company hope to reach its pinnacle performance.
| 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 5, column 39, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... Just because someone works in a field doesnt make them experts on everything related...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 343, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...yees are more likely to see things that wouldnt be represented in the companys data or ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 395, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...epresented in the companys data or that arent easily apparent to an outside observer....
^^^^^
Line 11, column 293, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... goals, or any part of the company that doesnt directly affect them. Consultants, on t...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, however, if, look, so, well, while, for example, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 33.0505617978 136% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2514.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 479.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.248434238 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88466164672 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 272.0 215.323595506 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.567849686848 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 765.0 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 70.0500771849 60.3974514979 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.6923076923 118.986275619 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4230769231 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.11538461538 5.21951772744 60% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.369902064631 0.243740707755 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0903443824628 0.0831039109588 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0825276122588 0.0758088955206 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192413474109 0.150359130593 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0792620075338 0.0667264976115 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.1392134831 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 100.480337079 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.