Identifying the ideal characteristics for strong leadership is always an arduous task. Two main juxtaposing qualities that are repeated highlighted are cooperation and competitiveness.
Since competitiveness is so highly regarded and considered the road to success, some people may argue that a sense of competitiveness should be instilled into the youth. Given this key, they hope that they somehow find their way to the top and be prepared to be effective leaders. However, this is not the case. Societies instead should teach cooperation to the youth to prepare them to become effective leaders. Throughout people figures and leaders that we heard about everyday, it is their cooperation that shines as their main successful quality.
The most obvious example is in our leaders in professional sports. While every single professional athlete is extremely competitive, they all require an extreme amount of cooperation into order to reach the top of their field. This is especially true in team sports. For instance, in football the leader of the offence, the quarterback, needs to be in communication with the entire team and needs to make the decisions or follow through with the coach’s decisions that will best benefit the team as a whole, even if he is hesitant. If cooperation is instilled in this player, he will effectively share the ball and plays, but if he mainly only possesses competitiveness he is prone to making selfish mistakes and will ultimately make a weak team leader.
A further example where cooperation outshines competitiveness is in government. In a democratic government, especially if it is a two party system, compromise is the only key to success. Without it, the system will forever be in a stalemate, rendering process as impossible and leading to ineffective governing. If the leaders in government are mainly taught to be competitive, they would only push forward their agenda without communicating about the needs of other representatives, which in the long run would hurt their own voters.
Finally a less obvious yet very prominent example is in industry. In the free market competitiveness is thought to be the driving factor behind a successful company. A competitive company is able to put itself forward and take control of the market, bringing unlimited profits to its leaders and shareholders. Although this is the common belief, its is not true. In reality companies need to partner with each other to bring up the whole market and profit together. For example, as computers were reaching market, the technology to develop them and make them a consumer product needed to be shared and researched by a wide group of scientists. Without this collaboration and communication between different teams, innovation would be slow and the consumer would suffer. The world would not be this connected if these teams mainly possessed a competitive spirt and did not have any cooperation.
Overall, although competitiveness is highlighted as an exceptional quality leading to effective leadership and success, it is cooperation that is the backbone of success and so must be taught to the youth. It is through cooperation that together we grow as a society.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 472, Rule ID: EVERYDAY_EVERY_DAY[3]
Message: 'Everyday' is an adjective. Did you mean 'every day'?
Suggestion: every day
...figures and leaders that we heard about everyday, it is their cooperation that shines as...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 552, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hines as their main successful quality. The most obvious example is in our leade...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...ng run would hurt their own voters. Finally a less obvious yet very prominent examp...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, may, so, still, while, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.5258426966 189% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 33.0505617978 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2698.0 2235.4752809 121% => OK
No of words: 514.0 442.535393258 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24902723735 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76146701107 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.18046915298 2.79657885939 114% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 215.323595506 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503891050584 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 839.7 704.065955056 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 59.3304356272 60.3974514979 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.769230769 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7692307692 23.4991977007 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.88461538462 5.21951772744 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.193505880128 0.243740707755 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0454901940514 0.0831039109588 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0388598733514 0.0758088955206 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0880285564191 0.150359130593 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0351187966341 0.0667264976115 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 100.480337079 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => 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.