As capitalism takes the global stage, a myriad of companies of various sizes have emerged. From large conglomerates like ExxonMobile to start-ups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) within local markets. Each company invariably faces some kind of operational difficulties as they expand or move into new fields. Being fledglings in certain markets, many companies turn to consultants, who have been deemed as experts and professionals in distinct fields, for advice on operations. This has given rise to many consultant firms like the Boston Consulting Group, McKinsey Consulting and Bain Consulting to name a few. However, detractors of such consultants argue that they are unnecessary, as investing time and resources into listening to the employees within the company would yield the same results. This essay aims to show that although employees may bring certain insights that rival those of consultants, the role of consultants is cannot entirely be replaced. It also depends on the purpose of hiring consultants and the state of the company and its direction in increasing operation efficiency.
Naysayers of the argument for consultants claim that by listening to the views of employees, the employment of consultants would be deemed unnecessary. Indeed, employees are the direct individuals working and experiencing the operational system of the company. Being in the thick of action, they will undeniably face difficulties in operations such as red-tape and extraneous administrative procedures that they can voice out. Changes would hence increase operational efficiency. Such evaluations from employees hence bring sage information that the company can process and incorporate the right changes, improving operational efficiency without incurring additional costs from consultants.
However, there remain areas of operational systems that employees and employers and blind to without hiring consultants. This is because consultants not only have specific training and experience in operational systems of companies, their occupations also give them past experiences working with similar companies, maybe even competitors, who have gone through analogous problems the company is facing. As such, they provide important insights that employees and employers would never have thought of from their past experiences. Consultants also have their own established frameworks that their consulting groups apply, allowing a more structured and organised approach to improve operational efficiency. This would definitely benefit the company in a more direct manner, rather than surveying employees and figuring out further plans of action without prior knowledge and experience in improving operational efficiency in that manner.
In addition, consultants are external to the company and can provide impartial assessments of the operational systems adopted by the company. In contrast, employees have vested interests as they are a part of the company and are likely to be involved in personal office relations or politics. Such can affect the partiality of employees when giving feedback. This instances are less likely to occur when an objective external consultant reviews the company's operational system as their main purpose would be to improve the operational efficiency for the company. They are freed from the workforce politics within the company and can give more sage advice. Therefore, the role of consultants cannot entirely be done away with.
Despite all the points or arguments above, it is important to understand that every company is different in terms of direction, goals and workforce. If the main purpose of Company X is to increase the morale of its workforce so as to increase efficiency of operation, it would make more sense to look inwards at employees than seek the help of external consultants. In contrast, another Company Y might want to to a re-arrangement of departments and workers and the professional advice and experiences of external consultants would definitely be important in such extreme structural changes. Therefore, I disagree to a large extent that listening to employees would make consultants unnecessary in increasing operational efficiency of companies. But I would like to qualify that statement in that it depends on the extent of structural changes and in what manner the company would like to achieve greater operational efficiency.
- The following appeared in a letter from the faculty committee to the president of Seatown University: A study conducted at nearby Oceania University showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for the 82
- 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. 66
- Claim: Even though young people often receive the advice to “follow your dreams,” more emphasis should be placed on picking worthy goals.Reason: Many people’s dreams are inherently selfish.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 267, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experiences'.
Suggestion: experiences
...anies, their occupations also give them past experiences working with similar companies, maybe e...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 513, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experiences'.
Suggestion: experiences
... would never have thought of from their past experiences. Consultants also have their own establ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 226, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...to increase the morale of its workforce so as to increase efficiency of operation, it wo...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 409, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: to
... contrast, another Company Y might want to to a re-arrangement of departments and wor...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, look, may, so, therefore, as to, in addition, in contrast, kind of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 29.0 14.8657303371 195% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 103.0 58.6224719101 176% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3739.0 2235.4752809 167% => OK
No of words: 663.0 442.535393258 150% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.6395173454 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.07432619952 4.55969084622 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07692307692 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 307.0 215.323595506 143% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463046757164 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1167.3 704.065955056 166% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.8136967426 60.3974514979 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.931034483 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8620689655 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.65517241379 5.21951772744 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.407785672697 0.243740707755 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116835072236 0.0831039109588 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0641710453691 0.0758088955206 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.258174977082 0.150359130593 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.029539867001 0.0667264976115 44% => 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: 16.6 14.1392134831 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 48.8420337079 66% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.73 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 169.0 100.480337079 168% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.