The claim that the best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in various fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation is a compelling one. Looking closely at the question of cooperation and how it has worked for past and present leaders, I would have to agree with the claim.
The desire to compete is inherent to human nature and it is not something that needs to be ‘instilled’ in young people. Humans will always try to outdo others: be it in school, office or even in social life. Although at first glance it may appear that leader must have a competitive edge in order to gain and maintain a leadership role, actively instilling competitiveness will result in leaders with destructive tendencies. The epitome of this is found in the extreme example of Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany. In his fanatical pursuit to show everyone that the Aryan race is the master race of the world, Hitler single-handedly caused the death of millions of Jewish lives, the after effect still felt today by people all over the world. We do not, however, need to consider such extreme examples in the past to find competitive leaders whose acts resulted in deleterious outcomes. The recent global economic meltdown was caused in large part by leaders of American banks and financial institutions who competed aggressively with each other for the almighty dollar.
Cooperative leaders in an organisation are more likely to succeed in a collective pursuit of a goal. Sergey Brin and Larry Page had the idea of Google to compete against the main search engine of their time, Alta Vista. Sergey and Larry’s competitive drive assisted in building the idea, but it was the collaborative effort with people that helped brought the product into fruition. Without the cooperation of others, we might not have Google as we know of today and which has become synonymous with the term ‘search engine’. A business honcho or CEO who does not listen to inputs from people working with him and adamant about doing things a certain way will result in a dysfunctional company. Even if the leader is the biggest fish in the pond, discord in a corporation will only have two outcomes. Either a bigger fish will come along and take over the leader’s role, or that the smaller fishes will team up to oust the leader.
One could argue that competitive drive is vital to succeed, and it is none the more true than in the world of sports. A soccer team such as Manchester United has been so successful throughout the years because of the competitive nature of their players. However, let’s not forget that the captain of a football squad will need to ensure that the team stays together through thick and thin, listening to player’s concern and feedback to ensure that everyone in the team is happy. The competitive drive of the captain complemented by a sense of cooperation and camaraderie in the team are key factors that would ultimately lead the team to win trophies.
In conclusion, it seems most critical for society to instil cooperative values in young people than competitive attitude. Competition is a natural thing that will develop with or without encouragement but the same cannot be said of cooperation (just think of kids in the playground). Whilst it is true that a leader will need to win some battles once in awhile, for the most part leaders would need to work in unison with people around them to be able to succeed in the role. Ultimately, a leader who fails to have learn the value of cooperation will be a short-lived leader.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 353, Rule ID: FOR_AWHILE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'a while'?
Suggestion: a while
...r will need to win some battles once in awhile, for the most part leaders would need t...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 514, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'learned', 'learnt'.
Suggestion: learned; learnt
... Ultimately, a leader who fails to have learn the value of cooperation will be a shor...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'so', 'still', 'while', 'in conclusion', 'such as', 'it is true']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.241982507289 0.240241500013 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.150145772595 0.157235817809 95% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0918367346939 0.0880659088768 104% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0422740524781 0.0497285424764 85% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0291545189504 0.0444667217837 66% => OK
Prepositions: 0.14139941691 0.12292977631 115% => OK
Participles: 0.0247813411079 0.0406280797675 61% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.82311596758 2.79330140395 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.036443148688 0.030933414821 118% => OK
Particles: 0.00145772594752 0.0016655270985 88% => OK
Determiners: 0.100583090379 0.0997080785238 101% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0262390670554 0.0249443105267 105% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0145772594752 0.0148568991511 98% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3586.0 2732.02544248 131% => OK
No of words: 614.0 452.878318584 136% => OK
Chars per words: 5.84039087948 6.0361032391 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.977853291 4.58838876751 108% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.338762214984 0.366273622748 92% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.231270358306 0.280924506359 82% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.148208469055 0.200843997647 74% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.099348534202 0.132149295362 75% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82311596758 2.79330140395 101% => OK
Unique words: 312.0 219.290929204 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508143322476 0.48968727796 104% => OK
Word variations: 64.037963092 55.4138127331 116% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6194690265 116% => OK
Sentence length: 25.5833333333 23.380412469 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.3329133043 59.4972553346 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.416666667 141.124799967 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5833333333 23.380412469 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5 0.674092028746 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 48.710369164 51.4728631049 95% => OK
Elegance: 1.84210526316 1.64882698954 112% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.449569354822 0.391690518653 115% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.105233218094 0.123202303941 85% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0698812959914 0.077325440228 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.540791055443 0.547984918172 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.134841076461 0.149214159877 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.178317918347 0.161403998019 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119687720618 0.0892212321368 134% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.517140254748 0.385218514788 134% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0670318628704 0.0692045440612 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.340335859937 0.275328986314 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.114285759104 0.0653680567796 175% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.4325221239 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.30420353982 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.88274336283 102% => OK
Positive topic words: 14.0 7.22455752212 194% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.66592920354 109% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.70907079646 111% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 13.5995575221 154% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.