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.
The author infers that leader regardless of field should step down after five years in that a group with new leader is more likely to success as he/she can revitalize the group. Even though, I concede that fresh energy and vitality are essential for success, I disagree with the claim for several reasons.
To begin with, I admit that new manager is likely to cause vitality which is essential for enterprise's success to the group. For example consider Liverpool a football team in England. After Liverpool changed team manager to Klopp, the team had changed a lot. The team became more energetic and playful than before and its performance became superior than before. As a result, the team had won Champions League and Premier League which the team had failed for decade. However, it does not imply that long-standing leaders are always obsolete and tedious. The team's vitality and performance depends to a leader's ability not a period the leader worked. A group with innovative and playful leader can maintain their performance and vitality no matter how long the leader maintained his/her status. For example, Apple, one of the biggest corporation had outstanding performance and achievements through its innovative product even though Steve Jobs had worked as manager for long period. Alex Ferguson had achieved outstanding performance in Manchester United States, a football team in England, winning many leagues and competition over one decade. Shall we change manager of Apple and Manchester United States merely because they had managed more than five years?
What is more, the manager may seek only for short-period profit without considering long-period effect if the group forces the manager to resign. As we all know, the group's manager should have long-sighted eye rather than short-sighted to make success. The group which only seeks for short-term effects are unlikely to success as time flows. However, forcing enterprise to change the leader in five years can induce failure of making long term success, as strategies or polices which concentrates on making long-term positive effects, are likely to need times to make positive effects. For example, Ronald Reagan, former president of United States had dealt economic depression in United States by ceasing cost control which was regarded as natural at that time and encouraging of competition among enterprises. Even though it took time, these polices had finally solved the economic depression and made United States a dominating country. If the United States does not allow Ronald Reagan's reelection and forces him to resign after five years, United States may still struggle with economic depression.
Finally, we should consider that sufficient experience is also significant factor of being successful leader. As CLC(corporate leadership council)'s research that 50% of new leaders fail in three years due to their inexperience and Tom peter's, well-known for business management, emphasis on 'know-how' by stating 'leader learns though experiences' implies the importance of experience, employing new leader every five years can be risky because new leaders have less experience of being in the group than old ones. As the conditions of enterprises are all different, the pre-existing leader probably had more experiences and know-hows caused by peculiarity and singularity of the enterprises which can not be accumulated by leading other enterprises. As we can not expect well adapted policy or leadership from new leader, requiring every managers to resign after five years can cause harmful effect on group's performance.
In consequence, even though I admit that new leader can sometimes induce revitalization I disagree with the statement based on above mentioned reasons. We should provide leader an opportunity to seek for long-term positive effect and should not overlook the experience which is essential for successful leader.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 351, Rule ID: SUPERIOR_THAN[1]
Message: The adjective superior is normally used with 'to'.
Suggestion: to
...ore and its performance became superior than before. As a result, the team had won C...
^^^^
Line 3, column 559, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'teams'' or 'team's'?
Suggestion: teams'; team's
...rs are always obsolete and tedious. The teams vitality and performance depends to a l...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 603, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'leaders'' or 'leader's'?
Suggestion: leaders'; leader's
...s vitality and performance depends to a leaders ability not a period the leader worked....
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 167, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'groups'' or 'group's'?
Suggestion: groups'; group's
... manager to resign. As we all know, the groups manager should have long-sighted eye ra...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 289, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...own for business management, emphasis on know-how by stating leader learns though...
^^
Line 7, column 747, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...cumulated by leading other enterprises. As we can not expect well adapted policy o...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, look, may, so, still, well, for example, as a result, to begin with, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3303.0 2235.4752809 148% => OK
No of words: 612.0 442.535393258 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.39705882353 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.97379470361 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77618322168 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 291.0 215.323595506 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475490196078 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 1029.6 704.065955056 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 11.0 3.10617977528 354% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.7011364815 60.3974514979 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.038461538 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5384615385 23.4991977007 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.19230769231 5.21951772744 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 10.2758426966 175% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.164148856904 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0518761287036 0.0831039109588 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.050591569883 0.0758088955206 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123579816217 0.150359130593 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0638933668344 0.0667264976115 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 161.0 100.480337079 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.