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.
The author here claims that in any field - business, politics, education, government - those in power should step down after five years to reinvent the success of the enterprises with new leadership. It is very conspicuous that new leadership will bring fresh ideas to the table, and with the combination of passion and experience, the enterprise can reach new heights. Frequent changes in the power holders rejuvenate the company but can also lead to instability and losses.
It is true that new leadership will bring about changes necessary in the company. A new leader if an old employee of the company would be experienced enough to know the shortcomings of the process. A new leader will also bring new ideas. Take, for example, the case of Microsoft. Microsoft's Windows has been the sole player in computer operating systems since the early nineties but has failed to tap the smartphone market. Under the leadership of Bill Gates, the company was continuously pushing for phones with Windows as the operating system. It was not only difficult to use but lacked many salient features, that the other smartphones were promising the customers. When Satya Nadella took over as the chief executive officer of the company, he worked on adapting to the changing circumstances, offering the market with a wide variety of smartphones to choose from. This is a clear example of how a company's success is revitalized through new leadership.
The argument claims that after a tenure of five years those in power should retire. This not only gives a chance to the younger generation but also creates a more democratic process. If the power to choose the next leadership is vested in the hands of all the employees, it gives them a sense of belongingness. The power should always be decentralized and frequent changes in leadership prevent the ideals of the company becoming dictatorial. In case the new leadership is passed to the spouse or offspring of the current leader, it will surely hamper the progress of the enterprise.
While frequent leadership changes have a lot of benefits, it can lead to instability in the enterprise too. It is possible that the newly elected candidate is not familiar with the work and might end up taking wrong decisions affecting the enterprise severely. One needs to consider if the company is ready to let go of the experience of the current leader has for new ideas. The old leader might be at the height of their excellence, replacing them at this point in time will lead to the loss of a great leader. What if the new leader is not acquainted with enough experience to run the company and ends up sacking the profitable policies? Consider the case when Steve Jobs stepped down as the CEO of Apple and was shortly reappointed. A time span of at least ten years will be more suited to business and educational enterprise while five years of tenure has seemed to work fine with government officials. Preferably if the new leader can be elected before there is ample time for the old one to retire, it will give the new leader opportunity to closely observe it's predecessor's work.
The argument here claims that those in power in any field should step down after a tenure of five years to reinvent the success of the enterprise. It is necessary to see how the new leadership is being elected. Bringing new leadership can not guarantee the success the company aims to achieve but frequent changes in leadership will surely bring fresh ideas and decentralize the power.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 641, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...nt features, that the other smartphones were promising the customers. When Satya Nadella took ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, while, as for, as to, at least, for example, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 88.0 58.6224719101 150% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2911.0 2235.4752809 130% => OK
No of words: 596.0 442.535393258 135% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88422818792 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94096258147 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75046606776 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 215.323595506 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.436241610738 0.4932671777 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 911.7 704.065955056 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.4165469003 60.3974514979 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.964285714 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2857142857 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.64285714286 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 : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => 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: 0.276351322326 0.243740707755 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0826443122631 0.0831039109588 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104604762659 0.0758088955206 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.19604393356 0.150359130593 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.091859440318 0.0667264976115 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.8420337079 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.1639044944 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 100.480337079 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.