If you are a leader for a group of three to four people, which of the following features are the most important when choosing group members?
-honesty
-the ability to get along well with others
-the ability to communicate clearly
When it comes to choosing a group member, some people think that honesty is the most critical feature. Others claim that the ability to get along well with others is more vital. Still, others maintain that the ability to communicate is preferable. For me, I believe that the second kind of person is the most ideal candidate. My reasons are as follows.
To begin with, I am exceptionally concerned about working efficiency, and choosing people who are talented in communicating with others can significantly improve my team's working efficiency. As an example, I was once a leader of a programming project group, and I chose my classmate, Todd, who was exceptionally talented in communicating with others. Todd helped me listen to other members’ opinions, negotiated with his group members, and helped me determine a programming language and a cloud platform that everybody liked and understood. As a result, my group could establish goals quickly, and eventually, we completed the assignment in no more than two weeks. On the other hand, another of my group member, Jimmy, was a truthful person. Nevertheless, when he encountered different opinions or suggestions, he often blatantly told his teammates that he disagreed. Consequently, even though Jimmy was a truthful person, his lack of communication skills prevented him from successfully reconciling with his classmates and setting up a short-term goal quickly, resulting in the decline in our working efficiency.
In addition, whenever I worked in a group, conflicts become inevitable. And apparently, having extraordinary communication skills helps reduce conflicts and facilitate cooperation. Take Todd again as an example. Whenever my group had some disputes about job division problems, such as who should be responsible for the frontend design, Todd would utilize his communication skill and help his teammates find a middle ground. Eventually, our group become friction-free, and we could often work together without any tension. Contrarily, another of my groupmate, Richard, was an easy-going person. Unfortunately, he was too nice to judge his teammates whenever they had disputes about job responsibility issues. In other words, he often stayed neutral whenever an argument took place, s
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 84, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to people'
Suggestion: to people
... about working efficiency, and choosing people who are talented in communicating with ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, consequently, if, nevertheless, second, so, still, well, as to, in addition, kind of, such as, as a result, in other words, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 15.1003584229 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 9.8082437276 51% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 43.0788530466 93% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 52.1666666667 65% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.0752688172 99% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1910.0 1977.66487455 97% => OK
No of words: 350.0 407.700716846 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.45714285714 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.48103885553 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19731520026 2.67179642975 120% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 212.727598566 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.58 0.524837075471 111% => OK
syllable_count: 588.6 618.680645161 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 9.59856630824 115% => OK
Article: 0.0 3.08781362007 0% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.51792114695 199% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.86738351254 321% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.1344086022 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 58.0486003277 48.9658058833 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.5 100.406767564 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5 20.6045352989 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.4 5.45110844103 154% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.53405017921 66% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.5376344086 18% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 11.8709677419 93% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88709677419 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.260555988834 0.236089414692 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0820781463147 0.076458572812 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0831288608243 0.0737576698707 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.223528693023 0.150856017488 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.144707153749 0.0645574589148 224% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 11.7677419355 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 58.1214874552 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.1575268817 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.09 10.9000537634 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.01818996416 109% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 86.8835125448 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.002688172 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.0537634409 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.