This topic raises the controversial issue of whether people in power should retire after five years of serving the administration. Indisputably, only a select group of people leading any organization may incur possible dictatorship. Nevertheless, in order to make greater changes in the society, such interpretation of the focused administration as dictatorship may not be reasonable. Thus, I generally disagree with opinions that ban one’s term more than five years and would argue that barriers to one’s leadership merely due to the length of the term are the very barriers to the success of the organization.
First of all, a committee should be given appropriate amount of time to execute a concrete administration for the success of the enterprise. I would like to point out that it is important to understand the history of an organization’s development in order to navigate the organization on the path to success. To illustrate, one can consider Steve Jobs as a living example. As one of the most successful leaders in IT, Steve Jobs has been leading the company to success by his stubborn decision making and execution of his own ideas for the past decade. Looking into his administration policies, one will quickly realize how autonomous leadership has proven efficiency and a focused way to success. Consequently, it is obvious that the success for an enterprise lies in the capability of the administration rather than in such rules to hand down the leadership to new teams frequently.
Furthermore, continuous swapping of leadership roles will not be a reasonable way to make progress for the company. Specifically, now the largest electricity supplier in the United States, NextEra, has had the same executive board members for the past 15 years of its history. Both common sense and personal experience have told us that blocking the right of capable administrations to lead an enterprise will also block the future of its own. Hence, all the evidence above demonstrates that the optimal status of an organization can be achieved through continuous efforts by a consistent team of capable leaders, and attempts for revitalization may only risk the path towards success.
Admittedly, putting all the rights in only few people’s hands for a long time may put the company at risk under dictatorship. This may be true when unreasonable ruling occurs due to the incapability of the committee. However, this does not constitute a sufficient support to claim that merely truncating one’s leadership to five years will ensure the success of an enterprise. Because the length of the administrative term does not decide the destiny for an organization, the administration should have freedom in their executive term.
In conclusion, although there may be a downside in terms of risking dictatorship, it should not limit the full potentials of an administration for the outlook for an enterprise. As long as the plans and ideas within the administration have the vision into the future, the success of an organization requires patience and focused administration by the leaders. In fact, the development of the current human society would have been deterred by decades if we constantly limited the great leaders’ great ideas within a scope of five years.
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment. 66
- Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership. 79
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, may, nevertheless, so, thus, as for, in conclusion, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 80.0 58.6224719101 136% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 12.9106741573 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2772.0 2235.4752809 124% => OK
No of words: 527.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25996204934 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30266186132 2.79657885939 118% => OK
Unique words: 266.0 215.323595506 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504743833017 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 879.3 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.7573163576 60.3974514979 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.0 118.986275619 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0952380952 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.61904761905 5.21951772744 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => 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: 0.181018484848 0.243740707755 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0535622159987 0.0831039109588 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0388667456827 0.0758088955206 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100252160732 0.150359130593 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0254611304127 0.0667264976115 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: 15.9 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 100.480337079 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.