Claim: In any field — business, politics, education, government — those in power should step down after five years.
Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
I agree with the overall idea that in any field - business, politics, education, government - those in power should step down after they have had enough time to improve the status quo and deliver positive results. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership, which will try new and different approaches to continuous improvement. However, I believe setting an universal time limit of five years to all cases is too strict. We should evaluate what is the maximum time leadership should hold power on a case-by-case basis.
The cyclical change in leadership of organizations is very good, as it infuses new ideas and approaches, bringing diversification of strategies to continuously improve. Having leaders that stay too long in power might dampen the organizations' ability to innovate and adapt to ever-changing landscapes, reducing its capacity to keep generating successful results. In politics, there are several examples of authoritarian governments, which stay in power longer than ten, twenty years, harming a society's ability to evolve. In businesses, there are also hundreds of examples of leadership teams that stay for too long in power, reducing their ability to innovate and try new strategies to keep growing.
Five years might be too soon to change those who are in power. There are several successful businesses who generated substantial results exactly because their founders and CEOs worked together for longer than five years, only passing the baton to the new generation of leaders after they were able to create a culture capable of generating sustainable positive results. Some examples of such companies are Google, Microsoft, Starbucks, Nike, etc. Also, several democracies allow reelections, thus enabling those who get to power to stay up to eight years in countries like the US, provided that they get enough votes in two consecutive elections. This allows for longer projects and longer term interventions.
Setting a hard five years deadline can simplify the problem of determining what is the appropriate time a team should hold power, until it is replaced by a new team. However, this simplification comes with a cost. If a team knows in advance its mandate in power will last only five years, it can prioritize only short and medium term interventions, which can produce desired results within that fixed timeframe, avoiding long term endeavors. Long term projects, in areas such as infrastructure, education, research & development, which usually take longer than five years to mature and yield positive outcomes, might never be executed.
Nevertheless, there are cases in which a leadership team must be replaced before five years. Consider a criminous president. If officials discover wrongdoings before the five years time limit, he or she must suffer impeachment before the five years deadline. Therefore, we must evaluate which is the proper time maximum time for leaders to hold power on a case-by-base basis.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 401, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...improvement. However, I believe setting an universal time limit of five years to a...
^^
Line 3, column 230, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'organizations'' or 'organization's'?
Suggestion: organizations'; organization's
...stay too long in power might dampen the organizations ability to innovate and adapt to ever-c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2529.0 2235.4752809 113% => OK
No of words: 471.0 442.535393258 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36942675159 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65859790218 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97452568633 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 245.0 215.323595506 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52016985138 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 801.9 704.065955056 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.9277660894 60.3974514979 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.428571429 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4285714286 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.90476190476 5.21951772744 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.272609090164 0.243740707755 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.076840683386 0.0831039109588 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0741852043555 0.0758088955206 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152547795329 0.150359130593 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0984913931716 0.0667264976115 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.1392134831 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.05 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 100.480337079 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.