In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.
Stating that those in power should be required to step down after five years, this view asserts that fixed power is harmful to an advance of a field. In some senses, it is true that unchanging situations bring about the regression of an organization and decaying. In my point, however, considering that there is no such guarantee whether next leader is competent like the previous leader and historical examples that a nation was divided after death a charismatic king, it is proper that maintenance of power is helpful for the prosperity of a group.
Of course, it is undeniable that the regular change of leader is safer and can give fuel to revitalize an organization. When it comes to most humans’ characteristic that tends to be sluggish when circumstances are safe and stable, regular change can make chances for people to try hard. For example, in many sports teams, after big success in competition and league, we can see the players and the coach and staffs tend to stay a previous success and think they can achieve the same glory in present competition without any effort and progress. However, these thoughts lead to the terrible result in competition, as a result, the board of directors of the team decides to change the coach or to bring new players by selling old players. These decisions make better results in the next year. This implies that bold decision may need for more progress and the great achievement of an organization.
Nonetheless, can we always say that every change makes better situations and lead other glories? My answer is definitely no. In human history, we can see many kingdoms and empires divided into many small nations or even destroyed after only a king or an emperor’s death. For example, the Great Alexander constructed an empire whose territory is 4th biggest in human history. However, after his sudden death, his empire is divided by his generals into 5 smaller kingdoms. And those kingdoms had disappeared in the flow of human history. Of course, we cannot say that if he didn’t die, his kingdom would be more continuous than those small countries, but he would rule better than his generals. The bottom line is that stepping down of a great leader could lead to more bad situations before.
Moreover, if the next leader is not proper and competent as the previous leader, the organization will walk on the way of omens of ruins. For example, few years after the board of directors of Apple driven out Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, in CEO, the apple had the crisis of bankrupt and finally they decided to give more authority to him again. And Apple’s heyday happened in the time when he was CEO, and this glory went on until he died. After his death, Apple’s previous glory left, but its fame is less than before. This implies how important the existence and duration of a great leader in a group is.
To summarize, many people would disagree that decaying of an organization comes from decaying of powers without changes. However, considering the historical examples and impact of changing capable and talented a leader in a field together, it is dangerous to regularly change the leader to prevent side-effect of continuity of power which we don’t know whether it will occur or not. Only ignoring these examples, people would say that changes in an organization always lead to new glory and success
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 299, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[14]
Message: Did you mean 'side effect' (=adverse effect, unintended consequence)? Open compounds are not hyphenated.
Suggestion: side effect
... regularly change the leader to prevent side-effect of continuity of power which we don&apo...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, may, moreover, nonetheless, so, for example, of course, as a result, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 27.0 14.8657303371 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 33.0505617978 154% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 86.0 58.6224719101 147% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2822.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 576.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89930555556 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89897948557 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69901352292 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 276.0 215.323595506 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479166666667 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 865.8 704.065955056 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 6.24550561798 240% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 13.0 4.38483146067 296% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.4775930072 60.3974514979 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.88 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.04 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.24 5.21951772744 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.112593172727 0.243740707755 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0318676546673 0.0831039109588 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0694044145828 0.0758088955206 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0727045894466 0.150359130593 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0751677605401 0.0667264976115 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.8420337079 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 100.480337079 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.