In any field — business, politics, education, government — those in power should be required to step down after five years.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
Businessmen and businesswomen, politicians, educators, and government officials are positions in which individuals are able impart their knowledge and/or influence others. This power dynamic is a concern in that if they are able to lead in their fields for an indefinite amount of time, it may lead to a continuous bias in favour for the practices of said individual. However, enforcing that these individuals must step down after five years is impractical for every field.
Firstly, some fields such as academia, require consistency for term longer than five years. A research professor, for example, is in their career to make significant contributions to his or her field. To do so, he or she sponsors several research projects to several post-doctoral (PhD) graduate students that have agreed to be part of the laboratory. PhD students are typically expected to be at the university for a minimum of 4 years, while most lasting over 5 years. Some of these projects also span over several students, meaning they can span over decades! As an academic, this professor is only able to make his or her contributions to their field and help the students pursuing academia if he or she is able to stay within their fields. Enforcing that professors need to step down after 5 years will detrimentally impact the types and quality of research conducted along with reducing the amount of support for students.
Secondly, enforcing a change in all fields that have a power-position is not practical. For one, the methods to implement such a change will require a kind of democratic structure to replace the vacant positions. However, orchestrating a voting system every 5 years for every single field is problematic. Not everybody can be replaced, especially if the individual that steps down is a specialist in their field. There could be a shortage of people in the work-force and perhaps nobody is able to fill the shoes of the newly left persons. Gathering all stakeholders to make a decision of who to hire next is both time consuming and hard to organize. There will also be a transitionary period for whoever is hired next, which slows down efficiency in whatever organization he or she joins. Overall, it is simply impractical to implement such a policy.
However, even with all the pitfalls of the policy, the idea for these powerful individuals to step down after a 5 year reign has a silver lining. The notion to have someone in power to step down is to fight against the risk of stagnant thinking and archaic leadership styles. However, going to the length of requiring these individuals to step down is dramatic; instead, organizations can promote self-reflection and annual reviews to ensure that these leaders are continually growing to the needs of their people. With this suggestion, we can combat the risks of long-term leadership.
Implementing a policy that has a strict requirement on career duration is impractical and may lead to worse outcomes. Instead, having leaders review themselves is better way to nearly achieve the same goals the policy intends.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 586, Rule ID: ABOUT_WHO_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'of whom to'?
Suggestion: of whom to
...ing all stakeholders to make a decision of who to hire next is both time consuming and ha...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, while, for example, kind of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2583.0 2235.4752809 116% => OK
No of words: 509.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07465618861 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74984508646 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97162821059 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 215.323595506 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506876227898 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 801.9 704.065955056 114% => 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: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
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: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.9880136862 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.304347826 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1304347826 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.47826086957 5.21951772744 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199711875308 0.243740707755 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0616838563246 0.0831039109588 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0430018846627 0.0758088955206 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112092001792 0.150359130593 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0345731603164 0.0667264976115 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 100.480337079 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.