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 the employees, sych consultants would be unnecessary.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent at which you agree or disagree these statements and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statements might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations share your opinions.
Operational Efficiency has always been key to improving the profitability of businesses and a key factor in building business competitive advantage. Competing effectively is key and thus companies must be able to maximize the utilization of their resources. In order to achieve the aforementioned companies must rely on the decision of management and those at the helm to make the best strategic decisions for the firm. Decisions however are not made in vacuum, companies must rely either on their own employees or external consultants to help decern their challenges and proffer solutions. I am of the opinion that hiring outside consultants to abet improvement in organisational efficiency would be better than companies relying on their employees. Though employees may have better first hand knowledge of the firm and its operations, external consultants provide for more objectivity, expertise and an out of the box perspective.
In order to improve the operational efficiency of a firm, one must consider the type of decisions that would be made, these decisions may range from cutting budgets to laying off staff. The decisions may be what enables the company best achieve its potential but may as well adversely affect certain employees in certain roles. It is therefore important that objectivity is maintained in the process. In order to mitigate against such likely conflicts of interest, it would be better for companies to hire external consultants who would prioritize the interest of the company. In order to drive home this point let us consider this illustration "in order for company A to improve its operations, it w=may be best for the company to cut a pargticular product line or branch, if however the line or branch manager is consulted for his best posible solution, he may be unable to profer the truncation of his branch or line for fear of losing his Job”.
A key factor to also consider is the expertise required. Employees are trained to do a particular job or funtion specifically in a role or position while consultants are trained and earn from the job of consulting, thus the consultants approach to thinking and problem solving is more wholistic. The consultants as a result of his work and experience would have better methodologies, skills and techniques to help solve a business problem. While an employee may have better first hand knowledge as a result of his daily engagement in the activities, he may however have a limited understanding of the greater picture. An accountant may understand the books of a company very well but may not understand the technicalities of running the day to day operations, however a consultant would be able to analyse both departments and profer a more wholistic solution.
Employees may have insights and an adept perspective of the business enabling them understand better the intricacies of the business and as a result of this develop a tunnel vision where he is only able to analyse the business from within the business. This may work for the company as employees relate with the clients better and all but Consultants bring a fresher perspective one where they see the business and are able to analyse from outside in. Consultants ar able to leverage on the data from employees thus nullifying the insights argument.
Although employees may have a better first hand knowledge of a business, Outside consultants provide a better strategic option as their objectivity, expertise, methods and perspectives would help business make better choices to improve thier operational efficiency.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-10-15 | Aishwarya01 | 54 | view |
| 2023-09-30 | Isolus | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-23 | bacec | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-18 | Adesina Boluwatito | 83 | view |
| 2023-09-09 | Theophilus Ebuka Odoh | 50 | view |
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which the disease is detected However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations we cannot permi 70
- 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 the employees sych consultants would be unnecessary Write a response in which you discuss the ex 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 952, Rule ID: EN_UNPAIRED_BRACKETS
Message: Unpaired symbol: '“' seems to be missing
...ranch or line for fear of losing his Job”. A key factor to also consider is t...
^
Line 7, column 532, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'insights'' or 'insight's'?
Suggestion: insights'; insight's
...data from employees thus nullifying the insights argument. Although employees may ha...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, well, while, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.4196629213 193% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3007.0 2235.4752809 135% => OK
No of words: 579.0 442.535393258 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19343696028 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90534594407 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04865034058 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.428324697755 0.4932671777 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 962.1 704.065955056 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 71.7593896295 60.3974514979 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.35 118.986275619 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.95 23.4991977007 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05 5.21951772744 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.266247378954 0.243740707755 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0925765903482 0.0831039109588 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0624326728998 0.0758088955206 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158310811462 0.150359130593 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0575435146765 0.0667264976115 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.1392134831 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.8420337079 71% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 100.480337079 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.