The claim of revitalization of enterprises for better growth is debatable. It implies that those in power in any field - business, politics, education, government - should change leaders every five years, or some allotted quota of period. Though, it may sound convincing that anointing new visionaries is going to rejuvenate the performance of the firm, bringing success in its way, it relies on the assumption that the successor is an equally abled, experienced individual with his team of expert, if not more. Those in power are responsible to the entire populace for their continual service, and hence, any discontinuity or lack of seamless service shows inefficacy on part of the firm.
Consider the technological firm Google as an example. Not only is the leading firm in its field in terms of market size, technological developments, and widespread popularity, it also possesses a plethora of products, services, research work that no rival is near them. This company has the Sundar Pichai as their CEO; with a work experience of more than a decade and a half in the same firm, not only does he have complete understanding of Google as a firm, but also of the functioning of the entire business. His remarkable feats of accomplishment as a CEO are as much as the results of his scholarly knowledge as his wisdom he acquired being the top-notch servant. Had someone replaced him as the CEO of Google, just on the eve of his five year term, it is highly unlikely that Google would achieve the unprecedented success it did in Sundar's vision.
Not only the performance of the firm has to be taken into consideration, but more importantly the answerability to their customers has to be considered as well. Robustness of service and a seamless user experience shall inevitably be hindered for at least once when the company undergoes change in leadership, if not perpetually. Although, the rival to the now leader might be competent with insightful worldly knowledge, what he probably lack is how to profitably run the firm.
Despite the slight jerk witnessed while transferring power in any field, it is not to say that this risk is always unwise. It might be the only
All in all, the issue of cycling leadership on a regular basis has more cons than realizable benefits. It is impolitic to impose this ideology blindly in every in practice for the various aforementioned reasons. Thus, in hope for a better future, employing a strict five year step down would only be wise when the circumstances are justified.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 440, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[3]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'lacks'.
Suggestion: lacks
...ful worldly knowledge, what he probably lack is how to profitably run the firm. ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 144, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...k is always unwise. It might be the only All in all, the issue of cycling leaders...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 277, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'step' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'steps'.
Suggestion: steps
...er future, employing a strict five year step down would only be wise when the circum...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, may, so, thus, well, while, as to, at least
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 35.0 33.0505617978 106% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2101.0 2235.4752809 94% => OK
No of words: 423.0 442.535393258 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96690307329 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00596868761 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548463356974 0.4932671777 111% => OK
syllable_count: 668.7 704.065955056 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.6910356 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.3125 118.986275619 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4375 23.4991977007 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0625 5.21951772744 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.187593824394 0.243740707755 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0626309028946 0.0831039109588 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0815460253617 0.0758088955206 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106175171236 0.150359130593 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102222595004 0.0667264976115 153% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.1639044944 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 100.480337079 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.