Nowadays, a lot of offices have open-space designs instead of separate rooms. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
In recent years, numerous enterprises have been adopting open-space layouts in lieu of closed workplaces. In my opinion, although this propensity has proven its upsides, they are somehow eclipsed by a whole host of drawbacks.
It is true that the former is beneficial to the staff regarding their interaction and quality of work. First of all, this type of layout might prompt interpersonal communication among the employees, ameliorating both their mental and emotional well-being. Engaging in conversations, or exchanging ideas with others, in fact, might alleviate their working stress, and therefore improve their work productivity. Second, working in open space enables the staff to establish and maintain relationships with other co-workers. To illustrate, people in varied departments can not only share equipment and resources such as printers or stationery, but there might also be more scope for fruitful team-working projects. As a result, social bondings in the whole company would be engendered, inspiring and enhancing their working environment.
Nonetheless, the aforementioned merits pale in comparison with the downsides, as a shared workplace is not private enough and might be hard for the staff to focus on their work in one way or another. In terms of privacy, the higher number of people in a given space could be responsible for the feeling of unpleasantness and embarrassment. This kind of design renders employees less comfortable when working or answering confidential emails. In addition, the staff have to contend with such a high level of distractions, for example, from phone ringing or people talking. These elements might in turn interfere with their working, minimizing their focus and engagement in work. Finally, the fact that people are situated closer together might exert a threat on their health due to the increasing potential rate of infection. This may cause more absence from work, which may worsen the overall productivity.
In conclusion, I am firmly convinced that the upsides of the idea of open-space offices are overshadowed by its limitations.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-04-01 | phuongngoc | 89 | view |
| 2022-01-14 | Annie18122005 | 61 | view |
| 2021-12-25 | chinh11111 | 89 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, may, nonetheless, regarding, second, so, therefore, well, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, kind of, such as, as a result, first of all, in my opinion, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1774.0 1615.20841683 110% => OK
No of words: 325.0 315.596192385 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45846153846 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12007282573 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 176.041082164 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.621538461538 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 537.3 506.74238477 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.1302078976 49.4020404114 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.875 106.682146367 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3125 20.7667163134 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.8125 7.06120827912 181% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0706551835983 0.244688304435 29% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0283048618522 0.084324248473 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0443909827013 0.0667982634062 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0683944193179 0.151304729494 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0437797975767 0.056905535591 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.4159519038 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.92 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 78.4519038076 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.