Recently, employee’s engagement in decision making has sparked an ongoing controversy, which inevitably leads to a moot question,” what are the positive and negative consequences?” Whereas it is a widely held view that employee’s suggestions can make the better decision, I will discuss controversial aspects of that throughout this essay.
From the managerial standpoint, consultation in decision-making is bound up inextricably with company policies, which indicates they lead to both career progression and total output. As a well-known example, a longitudinal study conducted by eminent scientists in 2014 demonstrates the relationship between enhanced productivity and employee productivity as well as an exponential increase in overall productivity. Their academic criticism was impressive. Consequently, my empirical evidence presented thus far support the contention that the teamwork is correlated positively with not only irreversible changes but also adverse outcomes.
Within the realm of behavioral science, without the slightest doubt, efficient management systems attribute to alternative hypotheses, in that it would come down to managerial interventions, business engagement, and smart decision. A salient example of such attribution is non-governmental organizations, which is a cause for concern since it was mistaken to take personal attitude for granted. Had there been a paradigm shift earlier, scholars might have had the opportunity to pinpoint motivation problems. Likewise, hardly had they confine their attention to team spirit, challenging job, and even white job. Hence, it is reasonable to infer the pivotal rule of systematic changes.
To conclude, as for myself, as the saying goes “all’s well that ends well,” after analyzing what elaborated above, I highly agree that decision-making process and synergy are of high importance. However, we perceive that with the benefit of hindsight, the more we research, the further we discover.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 134, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...hich inevitably leads to a moot question,' what are the positive and negative con...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 84, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...oes 'all's well that ends well,' after analyzing what elaborated above,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, hence, however, if, likewise, so, thus, well, whereas, as for, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 6.10837438424 65% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 5.94088669951 168% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 20.9802955665 110% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 31.9359605911 106% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.75862068966 208% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1721.0 1207.87684729 142% => OK
No of words: 285.0 242.827586207 117% => OK
Chars per words: 6.03859649123 5.00649968141 121% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 3.92707691288 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.59969219983 2.71678728327 132% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 139.433497537 146% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.715789473684 0.580463131201 123% => OK
syllable_count: 533.7 379.143842365 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.57093596059 121% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.6157635468 130% => OK
Article: 4.0 1.56157635468 256% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 1.71428571429 233% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 3.65517241379 164% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.5024630542 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 83.4960078886 50.4703680194 165% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.416666667 104.977214359 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.75 20.9669160288 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.16666666667 7.25397266985 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 6.9802955665 143% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 2.75862068966 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.117045531031 0.242375264174 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0309186729789 0.0925447433944 33% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0418831712341 0.071462118173 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0652817672986 0.151781067708 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0233325381507 0.0609392437508 38% => 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: 18.9 12.6369458128 150% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 53.1260098522 43% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 6.54236453202 199% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 10.9458128079 144% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.05 11.5310837438 157% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 11.26 8.32886699507 135% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 55.0591133005 212% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 22.5 9.94827586207 226% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.3980295567 108% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 10.5123152709 181% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 76.5 Out of 90
---------------------
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.