Although sound moral judgment is an important characteristic of an effective leader, it is not as important as a leader’s ability to maintain the respect of his or her peers.
The argument states that maintaining the respect of his or her peers is ultimately a more important characteristic in leaders than sound moral judgement. There are several important reasons that this claim does not hold true. First, history has shown us that individuals typically do not want to follow leaders they deem immoral and this leadership style can even lead to the decay of the group - ie the participation in the Vietnman war. Second, the success of the religious industry has largely been due to the moral judgement of it's leader. Lastly, in our modern working world it necessitates that leaders value judgement over respect.
The Vietnam War is a great example in which many people drafted into military service vehemently disagreed with the moral justification behind the war. Those individiuals even went so far as to avoid the draft to uphold their personal viewpoint. It did not matter if they respected the military leadership. These citizens would refuse to participate in military service (even with the threat of jail time) because the leader of this movement was not deemed to be of sound moral judgement.
Many religions throughout the world rely entirely on the groups belief that the leader has sound moral judgement. Many religions are highly successful in this way, gaining followers and becoming quite lucrative. Even in cults, members may find that a leader is participating in something that loses their respect, for example laundering money, but because they are preaching a general lifestyle that they deem is of sound moral judgment, they will continue to follow those leaders.
On the one hand, respect can be vital in order to control organizations that rely on the compliance and diligence of the group, such as the highly trained Marines, for their complex and tactical missions. However most places outside of this specific arena tend to encourage and even require discourse that could potentially be deemed "disrespectful" such as challenging a leader’s judgement. These scenarios are found daily in the modern corporate environment. For example, a company's department meeting will often ask for opinions of their peers when going over solutions to issues they are facing. It is expected that workers bring up differing viewpoints to ensure that all angles of the problem are addressed and that the best solution will be determined regardless of whether it was the leader's idea or of a worker underneath them.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | jason123 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-25 | arpit6798 | 79 | view |
| 2020-01-25 | srujanakeerthi | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-25 | srujanakeerthi | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-25 | srujanakeerthi | 50 | view |
- Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of w 55
- Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs. 83
- Although sound moral judgment is an important characteristic of an effective leader, it is not as important as a leader’s ability to maintain the respect of his or her peers. 66
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 66
- 'The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.“Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of 69
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 58, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'groups'' or 'group's'?
Suggestion: groups'; group's
...roughout the world rely entirely on the groups belief that the leader has sound moral ...
^^^^^^
Line 13, column 206, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...or their complex and tactical missions. However most places outside of this specific ar...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 808, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'leaders'' or 'leader's'?
Suggestion: leaders'; leader's
...rmined regardless of whether it was the leaders idea or of a worker underneath them. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, so, as to, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 33.0505617978 127% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2082.0 2235.4752809 93% => OK
No of words: 398.0 442.535393258 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23115577889 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46653527281 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92045019479 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572864321608 0.4932671777 116% => OK
syllable_count: 640.8 704.065955056 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => 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: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.8268594838 60.3974514979 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.470588235 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4117647059 23.4991977007 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.52941176471 5.21951772744 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.234544872286 0.243740707755 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0759052418135 0.0831039109588 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0901750724792 0.0758088955206 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143696849647 0.150359130593 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0834575085424 0.0667264976115 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.34 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 100.480337079 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.