I would like to talk about an argument that two of my friends who are also a founder and the head of HR department of a social project that I worked for a while ago. So the founder who named his hi, he was kind of conservative and he believed that his responsible was solely about building the strategy and supervised the work operations. Oh and he didn’t take care much about people engagement. He believed that that is the responsible of human resources department. While it’s true to some extent, as the head of human resources department explained that the engagement had to start with the core members which are the board of directors and if the board of directors didn’t connect well with each other, they couldn’t inspire the members to engage with the organizations for a long time. So she suggested hi and the board of directors to identify some core values that they want to build and then the head of human resources department will figure out how to build some mechanisms, some activities and policies to reach that core values and to align with those core values as well as the outcomes of the organizations and then human resources will have to execute and supervise the process of people operations and people engagement but it had to start with the core members especially the founder first and hi. Will this agree because he thought that people could still work well without the deep engagement with the founder because he was so busy he was buried in work and he overlooked that suggestion.
Band 7+: Describe an argument two of your friends had
Skyrocket your IELTS band score by 1-2 points in under a month with our premium plan!
Note: Both the topic and the answer were submitted by one of our users.
71%
Accuracy
The overall pronunciation accuracy of your speech, reflecting how well a native speaker can comprehend it.
Polished transcript:
Male
Female
I would like to talk about an argument that two of my friends had. They are the founder and the head of the HR department of a social project that I worked on a while ago. The founder, who is named Hi, was kind of conservative and believed that his responsibility was solely about building the strategy and supervising the work operations. He didn't take care much about people engagement, believing that it was the responsibility of the human resources department. While this is true to some extent, the head of the human resources department explained that engagement had to start with the core members, which are the board of directors. If the board of directors didn't connect well with each other, they couldn't inspire the members to engage with the organization for a long time. She suggested that Hi and the board of directors identify some core values that they wanted to build. Then, the head of the human resources department would figure out how to create mechanisms, activities, and policies to reach those core values and align with the outcomes of the organization. Human resources would then have to execute and supervise the process of people operations and engagement, but it had to start with the core members, especially the founder first. Hi disagreed because he thought that people could still work well without deep engagement with him, as he was so busy and buried in work, and he overlooked that suggestion.
Actual audio transcript (What native speakers are likely to hear):
Tips: Click on each word to see feedback.
Speaking Time: 98 seconds