In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team. Having a team of people attack a project offers several advantages. First of all, a group of people has a wider range of knowledge, expertise, and skills than any single individual is likely to possess. Also, because of the number of people involved and the greater resources they possess, a group can work more quickly in response to the task assigned to it and can come up with highly creative solutions to problems and issues. Sometimes these creative solutions come about because a group is more likely to make risky decisions that an individual might not undertake. This is because the group spreads responsibility for a decision to all the members and thus no single individual can be held accountable if the decision turns out to be wrong.
Taking part in a group process can be very rewarding for members of the team. Team members who have a voice in making a decision will no doubt feel better about carrying out the work that is entailed by that decision than they might doing work that is imposed on them by others. Also, the individual team member has a much better chance to “shine,” to get his or her contributions and ideas not only recognized but recognized as highly significant, because a team’s overall results can be more far-reaching and have greater impact than what might have otherwise been possible for the person to accomplish or contribute working alone.
Professor
Now I want to tell you about what one company found when it decided that it would turn over some of its new projects to teams of people and make the team responsible for planning the projects and getting the work done. After about six months, the company took a look at how well the teams performed.
On virtually every team, some members got almost a “free ride” . . . they didn’t contribute much at all, but if their team did a good job, they nevertheless benefited from the recognition the team got. And what about group members who worked especially well and who provided a lot of insight on problems and issues? Well . . . the recognition for a job well done went to the group as a whole; no names were named. So it won’t surprise you to learn that when the real contributors were asked how they felt about the group process, their attitude was just the opposite of what the reading predicts.
Another finding was that some projects just didn’t move very quickly. Why? Because it took so long to reach consensus; it took many, many meetings to build the agreement among group members about how they would move the project along.
On the other hand, there were other instances where one or two people managed to become very influential over what their group did. Sometimes when those influencers said, “That will never work” about an idea the group was developing, the idea was quickly dropped instead of being further discussed. And then there was another occasion when a couple influencers convinced the group that a plan of theirs was “highly creative.” And even though some members tried to warn the rest of the group that the project was moving in directions that might not work, they were basically ignored by other group members. Can you guess the ending to this story? When the project failed, the blame was placed on all the members of the group.
The passage claims that the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team and provides some specific reasons to support the claim. However, the professor indirectly asserts that assembling a group of people into a team is not definitely the best way to approach certain new projects and refutes each of the reasons provided in the passage based on the observations in a company that assigned some of its projects to a group of people.
Firstly, the passage states that as a group of people has a wider range of knowledge, expertise, and skills than a single individual along with a greater number of people and resources, can ensure a quicker response to the task assigned and come up with highly creative solutions. However, the professor refutes this advantage by presenting an observation in the company that it took a long time for some projects in a company to come out with effective solutions because reaching a consensus was a bit arduous when people worked in a group.
Secondly, the passages states taking part in a group is rewarding for all members of the team as team members will be more encouraged in carrying out a task in a group. However, the professor refutes this reason by presenting an observation in the company that only one or two members of a group managed to become influential over what their group did. Ideas and viewpoints of those few members were only considered in carrying out a group task.
Finally, the passages states that an individual member has a better chance to shine in a group as his or her idea and contribution can have a greater impact on the results and prove to highly significant. However, the professor refutes this reason by presenting the evidence of the company in which the recognition of the task well performed went to the group as a whole despite the fact that solutions and ideas were provided by only a few members of the group and rest others contributing nothing, just enjoying a free ride.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 30.3222958057 178% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1656.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 349.0 270.72406181 129% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74498567335 5.08290768461 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69914648464 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.446991404011 0.540411800872 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 524.7 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 38.0 21.2450331126 179% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 71.0270336293 49.2860985944 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 184.0 110.228320801 167% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.7777777778 21.698381199 179% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336190816399 0.272083759551 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.160703386084 0.0996497079465 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.129325296607 0.0662205650399 195% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211561396934 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.140227191977 0.0443174109184 316% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.3 13.3589403974 152% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.37 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.9 11.0289183223 153% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.8 12.2367328918 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 10.7273730684 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.2 10.498013245 164% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.