The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition.
Whenever people argue that history is a worthless subject or that there is nothing to be gained by just “memorizing a bunch of stupid names and dates,” I simply hold my tongue and smile to myself. What I’m thinking is that, as cliche as it sounds, you do learn a great deal from history (and woe to those who fail to learn those lessons). It is remarkable to think of the number of circumstances and situations in which even the most rudimentary knowledge of history will turn out to be invaluable. Take, for example, the issue at hand here. Is it better for society to instill in future leaders a sense of competition or cooperation? Those who have not examined leaders throughout time and across a number of fields might not have the ability to provide a thorough and convincing answer to this question, in spite of the fact that it is crucial to the future functioning of our society. Looking closely at the question of leadership and how it has worked in the past, I would have to agree that the best way to prepare young people for leadership roles is to instill in them a sense of cooperation.
Let us look first at those leaders who have defined themselves based on their competitiveness. Although at first glance it may appear that a leader must have a competitive edge in order to gain and then maintain a leadership position, I will make two points on this subject. First, the desire to compete is an inherent part of human nature; that is, it is not something that needs to be “instilled” in young people. Is there anyone who does not compete in some way or another every single day? You try to do better than others in your school work or at the office, or you just try to do better than yourself in some way, to push yourself. When societies instill competitiveness in their leaders, it only leads to trouble. The most blatant example in this case is Adolf Hitler, who took competition to the very extreme, trying to prove that his race and his country were superior to all. We do not, however, need to look that far to find less extreme examples (i.e., Hitler is not the extreme example that disproves the rule). The recent economic meltdown was caused in no large part by the leaders of American banks and financial institutions who were obsessed with competing for the almighty dollar. Tiger Woods, the ultimate competitor in recent golfing history and in many ways a leader who brought the sport of golf to an entirely new level, destroyed his personal life (and perhaps his career -- still yet to be determined) by his overreaching sense that he could accomplish anything, whether winning majors or sleeping with as many women as possible. His history of competitiveness is well documented; his father pushed him from a very early age to be the ultimate competitor. It served him well in some respects, but it also proved to be detrimental and ultimately quite destructive.
Leaders who value cooperation, on the other hand, have historically been less prone to these overreaching, destructive tendencies. A good case in point would be Abraham Lincoln. Now, I am sure at this point you are thinking that Lincoln, who served as President during the Civil War and who refused to compromise with the South or allow secession, could not possibly be my model of cooperation! Think, however, of the way Lincoln structured his Cabinet. He did not want a group of “yes men” who would agree with every word he said, but instead he picked people who were more likely to disagree with his ideas. And he respected their input, which allowed him to keep the government together in the North during a very tumultuous period (to say the least). My point in choosing the Lincoln example is that competitiveness and conflict may play better to the masses and be more likely to be recorded in the history books, but it was his cooperative nature that allowed him to govern effectively. Imagine if the CEO of a large company were never able to compromise and insisted that every single thing be done in exactly her way. Very quickly she would lose the very people that a company needs in order to survive, people with new ideas, people ready to make great advances. Without the ability to work constructively with those who have conflicting ideas, a leader will never be able to strike deals, reach consensus, or keep an enterprise on track. Even if you are the biggest fish in the pond, it is difficult to force your will on others forever; eventually a bigger fish comes along (or the smaller fish team up against you!).
In the end, it seems most critical for society to instill in young people a sense of cooperation. In part this is true because we seem to come by our competitive side more naturally, but cooperation is more often something we struggle to learn (just think of kids on the playground). And although competitive victory is more showy, more often than not the real details of leadership come down to the ability to work with other people, to compromise and cooperate. Getting to be President of the United States or the managing director of a corporation might require you to win some battles, but once you are there you will need diplomacy and people-skills. Those can be difficult to learn, but if you do not have them, you are likely to be a short-lived leader.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-28 | nha1806 | view | |
| 2024-10-31 | ekarumeblessing@icloud.com | 79 | view |
| 2024-08-31 | hainess25 | 70 | view |
| 2024-08-28 | Rishab@1999 | 50 | view |
| 2024-07-02 | MMoksha | 66 | view |
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of WLSS television station Over the past year our late night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news During the same 55
- The true test of the greatness of a work of art is its ability to be understood by the masses 50
- The editor of a local newspaper sent the following memo to the managing editor of the paper Three years ago when we surveyed our subscribers they complained about the quality of the reporting and writing in the paper Since that time we have made a concert 50
- The following editorial appeared in the Broomall County Times Picayune The Gordon Act which established a wildlife refuge in the Big Dark Swamp is currently up for reauthorization The act prohibits the building of roads or cutting of old growth trees in t 52
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company According to a recent report from our marketing department during the past year fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any ot 50
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 655, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this can' or 'Those cans'?
Suggestion: This can; Those cans
... will need diplomacy and people-skills. Those can be difficult to learn, but if you do no...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, so, still, then, well, for example, in spite of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 45.0 19.5258426966 230% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 38.0 14.8657303371 256% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 33.0 11.3162921348 292% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 100.0 33.0505617978 303% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 139.0 58.6224719101 237% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4361.0 2235.4752809 195% => OK
No of words: 933.0 442.535393258 211% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.6741693462 5.05705443957 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.52675752124 4.55969084622 121% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69639257188 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 430.0 215.323595506 200% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460878885316 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1387.8 704.065955056 197% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 20.0 6.24550561798 320% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 10.0 1.77640449438 563% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 34.0 20.2370786517 168% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.9341461164 60.3974514979 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.264705882 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.4411764706 23.4991977007 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.17647058824 5.21951772744 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.214341334398 0.243740707755 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0609705904346 0.0831039109588 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0925327531318 0.0758088955206 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151901229473 0.150359130593 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0717506371772 0.0667264976115 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.8420337079 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.1743820225 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.1 12.1639044944 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 185.0 100.480337079 184% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 655, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this can' or 'Those cans'?
Suggestion: This can; Those cans
... will need diplomacy and people-skills. Those can be difficult to learn, but if you do no...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, so, still, then, well, for example, in spite of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 45.0 19.5258426966 230% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 38.0 14.8657303371 256% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 33.0 11.3162921348 292% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 100.0 33.0505617978 303% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 139.0 58.6224719101 237% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4361.0 2235.4752809 195% => OK
No of words: 933.0 442.535393258 211% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.6741693462 5.05705443957 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.52675752124 4.55969084622 121% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69639257188 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 430.0 215.323595506 200% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460878885316 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1387.8 704.065955056 197% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 20.0 6.24550561798 320% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 10.0 1.77640449438 563% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 34.0 20.2370786517 168% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.9341461164 60.3974514979 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.264705882 118.986275619 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.4411764706 23.4991977007 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.17647058824 5.21951772744 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.214341334398 0.243740707755 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0609705904346 0.0831039109588 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0925327531318 0.0758088955206 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151901229473 0.150359130593 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0717506371772 0.0667264976115 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.8420337079 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.1743820225 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.1 12.1639044944 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 185.0 100.480337079 184% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.