In this modern world to become a successful student, professional or a leader a person need to be skilled, passionate and laborious. Everyone renovates themselves through trial and error process continuously by utilizing experience. For this one need to have energy, alacrity and skills. But, experience is the thing one can achieve by working for long time. Hence, I am not in the favor claimed in the statement that in any field business, politics, education, government — those in power should step down after five years.
First of all, author gives a reason that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership. But a new leader can’t lead the path successfully unless he doesn’t have any experience. Experience is the thing which introduces a professional to the obstacles, patience, mentality of working in team and skills. Without the skills in the specific field, one can’t surely lead the team successfully. For achieving experience one has to work for long period. It will rather hamper to create a feasible leader if corporations shift the leaders from the post after every five years. For example, we can consider Steve Jobs who established Apple, is a true leader. His leading helps Apple to be the best tech company. But after his quit, this giant tech company suffererd from the lack of a suitable leader and new leadership was not able to fill the place of him which unambiguously indicates that the lack of some qualities in the new leader that have to be achieved through experience.
Secondly, the institution will not get benefit from the plan that was taken by previous leader and can’t materialize any long-term plan because the new leader will interpret the previous plan. As a result, institution can’t achieve something bigger for the scant of longer plan. For example, leaders always need to stick to their policy and ethics to conduct a country successfully. The country will achieve a few if they change their plan frequently. In Bangladesh, the ruling party Awamileague always invest in the defense sector where the opponent party when comes in power rarely invest in the defense. Consequently, the defense sector of this country hasn’t developed well. If the opponent party also would invest to defense sector with a longer plan keeping harmony with current party surely the defense become powerful by this day.
Finally, author mentions here five years and it doesn’t make any sense clear. Why does a leader need to be replaced after every five years? It actually depends on the productivity of the leader with which he is serving the corporation. There is no need to replace him after five years if a leader doing great. In the same way, one needs to be replaced before five years if he failed to prove himself as a good leader.
In summary, from the above analysis and examples it is lucid that to have success for an institution, leaders need not to be replaced after every five years for revitalization because there are lots of uncertainties that come with a new leader. Rather, it has been proved that the revitalization comes with leadership of an experienced leader.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 134, Rule ID: EACH_EVERY_NNS[1]
Message: 'Each' and 'every' are used with singular. Did you mean 'all'?
Suggestion: All
...o be skilled, passionate and laborious. Every people renovates themselves through tri...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 695, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...his country hasn't developed well. If the opponent party also would invest to...
^^
Line 12, column 120, Rule ID: NEEDNT_TO_DO_AND_DONT_NEED_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'be'?
Suggestion: be
...ss for an institution, leaders need not to be replaced after every five years for rev...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, finally, first, hence, if, second, secondly, so, well, as to, for example, in summary, as a result, first of all, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2671.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 529.0 442.535393258 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04914933837 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79583152331 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80964866002 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 215.323595506 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.47258979206 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 835.2 704.065955056 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.4879349356 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.3928571429 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8928571429 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.85714285714 5.21951772744 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.280334579049 0.243740707755 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0755110376987 0.0831039109588 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120420933774 0.0758088955206 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162138160743 0.150359130593 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0978974144807 0.0667264976115 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.1639044944 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.38706741573 93% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 100.480337079 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.