Claim: In any field - business, politics, education, government - those in power should step down after five years
Reason: The surest path to sucess for any enterprise is revitalization though new leadership
A good leader is someone that has clear vision for its organization. One should be able to adequately meet the needs of their people, while helping them to achieve their organizational objectives. However, as these organizations outlives us, it is important for them to relay the leadership torch to someone new. With regards to this issue, people often argues that those in leadership should only rule for a short period of time - five years, for example. They argue that regeneration of leadership will help the organization to achieve greater heights. However, due to many reasons, I would like to argue that premature change in leadership will inhibit growth to a large extent.
One argues that periodical change in leadership will ensure that the best talents will have their chance to lead. There are new talents that are groomed every year - be it management trainees, or new members of parliament that was elected by the people. We might not be able to realize their true potential without giving them to chance to lead. They might brought fresh perspectives and energy to the organization.
While this argument may sound enticing, I believe that changes might not always be a good thing. While new ideas may thrive, experience and maturity can only be built over time. We might not always find a better replacement to those currently in power. Forcing people to step down every five years might cost the organization to lose their best leaders, replacing them with someone that are unable to fill in their shoes right away. By the time the new leader learns how to lead effectively, it might be their time to step down.
Following the previous argument, I believe that forcing leaders to step down will bring destabilization to the organization. Each leader has their own unique goals throughout their term. As they step down, the new leader might push for different objectives, negating the direction their predecessor have taken. For example, the previous United States of America, President Obama, has pushed for an universal health care system in the United States. However, as he was replaced by the President Trump, the current medical care system was terminated in favour of providing more incentives to local business. Frequent changes in policy will brought destabilization to any organization, inhibiting them to work towards any directions in the long run.
Lastly, the process of replacing a leader might incur a high cost. In most of the democratic countries, public elections are held to choose the next leader. In order to garner more votes, the candidates often spend a great deal of resources to advertise themselves. Government budget that can be used for other means, such as education and infrastructure, was burnt to finance the election process. Sometimes, the candidates promises other political figures with prosperous positions within the government in order to buy their votes. Thus, elected government might not always be filled by the most competent people. This reason alone invalidates the argument about the benefit of leadership revitalisation.
Even though changes can sometimes result in a better future, sticking to the status quo might also be a good choice. I believe that forcing the incumbent to step down in five years might not be the best policy. Allowing the current leaders to step up again, when there are no better candidates to replace them, might be a better strategy.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-05-14 | adityasidharta | 58 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 416, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...leadership should only rule for a short period of time - five years, for example. They argue t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 396, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...merica, President Obama, has pushed for an universal health care system in the Uni...
^^
Line 7, column 639, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'bring'
Suggestion: bring
...siness. Frequent changes in policy will brought destabilization to any organization, in...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, lastly, may, so, thus, while, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.9520958084 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 52.0 28.8173652695 180% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2879.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 562.0 441.139720559 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12277580071 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86893614481 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76136359285 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 283.0 204.123752495 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503558718861 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 893.7 705.55239521 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 19.7664670659 157% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.7957752133 57.8364921388 50% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 92.8709677419 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1290322581 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.22580645161 5.70786347227 39% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 8.20758483034 219% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.157615604183 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0417062585871 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0367481852181 0.0701772020484 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0824383576734 0.128457276422 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0348047883615 0.0628817314937 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.12 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.