The stated claim that leaders in businesses, politics, education, government, etc. should be changed every five years and its reason that it is the most definitive path to success, does sound inspiring and also may be true in some cases. But, in real-world scenarios, it may not be profitable at all. It is true that a newly appointed person brings a fresh mind and out of the box thinking to the table, but the time and resources needed to find the perfect match, along with the time needed to get accustomed to the new position may bear a cost too painful for the organization.
A person who has been leading an organization has had years of experience in working under its roof. He has hands-on working knowledge of multiple functions of the company: its aims, its operations, its growth strategy and many such things that are necessary to be learned by a successful leader. It takes time and lots of effort to excel in all these matters. But according to the claim, if the leader is mandated to step down and a new person be given his place, it will take a lot of time and effort for the new person to get accustomed to the position. During the time period of this transition, the organization may undergo severe consequences which could have been handled efficiently by the leader, had he continued to be so.
If the change of leadership every 5 years is made mandatory, nobody would be encouraged to aspire for that position. There would not be any job stability. Also knowing that the person would be replaced in a fixed time period, would not yield the optimum profit, had the person been assured of his position for the long term. Employees would yearn for positions beneath leaders which would guarantee them stability with the highest compensation. Eventually, there would be a dearth of leaders and a plethora of assistants. This would lead to a downfall of any organization.
In 2003, a multinational company Xinpieng Corporative in China made it mandatory for its Hong Kong headquarter to revitalize its leaders (Presidents, Vice Presidents, and some Chief Officers) every 4 years. In the first few years, the profits soared due to new hires, and their out of the box ideas. The company was under the impression that this decision has hugely successful and planned to implement it on all of its branches worldwide. Unfortunately, around 2011, they started to notice a lack of motivation among its employees to get promotions. Instead, they started joining other organizations. Also, new hirings for senior positions were hard to come by. Eventually, they rolled back their decision and focussed on promoting employees' well being. The setback was huge, but it was finally overcome in years.
A question arises here, that if the current leadership is already adequate and is producing profitable yield, is there necessarily a need to replace it after its completion of 5 years in the role? It does have an adverse effect on the minds of the employees and the work environment of the company. Maybe this claim was based on organizations having leaders enjoying their position without being a valuable asset. In such cases, it is necessary for a fresh hire, but making it mandatory is not the right step. Also, the time period of 5 years is too little for a new person to get their knowledge on the level of their predecessor. Thus, this claim and its reason can be misleading if trusted blindly.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 156, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
.... There would not be any job stability. Also knowing that the person would be replac...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, so, thus, well, in some cases, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.5258426966 164% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 33.0505617978 151% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2830.0 2235.4752809 127% => OK
No of words: 587.0 442.535393258 133% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82112436116 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9222030514 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76324683774 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 285.0 215.323595506 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485519591141 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 871.2 704.065955056 124% => 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: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.3422252504 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.5862068966 118.986275619 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2413793103 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.65517241379 5.21951772744 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => 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: 0.149192540177 0.243740707755 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0403801417032 0.0831039109588 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0379430867642 0.0758088955206 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0834488354076 0.150359130593 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0200768942098 0.0667264976115 30% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.1392134831 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.8420337079 122% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.1639044944 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 100.480337079 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => 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.