Some employers reward members of staff for their exceptional contribution to the company by giving them extra money. This practice can act as an incentive for some but may have a negative impact on others.
To what extent is this style of management effective?
Are there better ways of encouraging employees to work hard?
People have different views about the way to honor excellent staffs by giving them more money. While some argue that it would be negative influence on others, I believe that this rewarding strategy can benefit to both employees and company and some other methods to encourage hard-working worker can be promoted.
There are various reasons why I am in favor of this kind of reward. The first point is that money is necessary in order to meet their basic needs such as housing, bill, health care and education. Hence, the attraction of earning additional money will increase the diligence of employees. The second point is that only really successful employees can get the reward, so every worker will try the best of their abilities to be on the top by their outstanding performance. Obviously, this process would lead to the competition among the members of the staff. As a result, company can benefit from it as the competition usually triggers the improvement in the performance.
Nevertheless, I believe that other motivations are just important as extra bonus. A good approach is for management to identify excellent staff through incentive schemes such as “Employee of the Month” or “Worker of the Week” to make people feel recognized. Such people are usually singled out with the help of clients. Hotels, restaurants and tours operators may also allow staff to accept tips offered by clients who are pleased with the services. However, tipping is a highly unreliable source of income and does not favor everyone.
In conclusion, employees want to recognize for their contribution – whether through receiving more money or simply some encouraging words. They also need to feel that their contribution to the whole company is worthwhile. Good management recognizes this need and responds appropriately.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-11-25 | NSMDeadshot0411 | 84 | view |
| 2022-11-25 | NSMDeadshot0411 | 78 | view |
| 2022-07-08 | quytnee | 74 | view |
| 2022-02-25 | Fedya | 78 | view |
| 2021-10-27 | sheep | 80 | view |
- Modern societies need specialists in certain fields, but not in others. Some people therefore think that government should pay university fees for students who study subjects that are needed by society; those who choose to study less relevant subjects sh 78
- Scientists say that in the future humanity will speak the same language Do you think this is a positive or negative social development 52
- Some employers reward members of staff for their exceptional contribution to the company by giving them extra money This practice can act as an incentive for some but may have a negative impact on others To what extent is this style of management effectiv 87
- The diagrams below show the stages in the development of simple cooking equipment Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisos where relevant 85
- The charts below give information about the way in which water was used in differnt countries in 2000 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisos where relevant 79
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 70, Rule ID: ADDED_BONUS[1]
Message: This phrase might be redundant. Use simply 'bonus'.
Suggestion: bonus
...other motivations are just important as extra bonus. A good approach is for management to i...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, really, second, so, while, in conclusion, kind of, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 24.0651302605 91% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 41.998997996 93% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1551.0 1615.20841683 96% => OK
No of words: 294.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27551020408 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91926512046 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 176.041082164 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595238095238 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 471.6 506.74238477 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.384769539078 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.76152304609 42% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.746950101 49.4020404114 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.9375 106.682146367 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.375 20.7667163134 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06120827912 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.67935871743 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.299066657499 0.244688304435 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0774973621457 0.084324248473 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0550679340536 0.0667982634062 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171223633033 0.151304729494 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0658187316936 0.056905535591 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.0946893788 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.58950901804 101% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 78.4519038076 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.