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 issue of whether those in power should step down after five years is a contentious one. While each side has it strengths and weaknesses, I mostly disagree with the statement for several reasons. Primarily, new leaders are generally younger than those in charge for years, so they are not as experienced as old ones. In addition, changing executive every five year would curb the root of stability of the institution, because every time there will be adaptation process of newcomer, and the foundation will be open for any administrative mistakes in this duration.
First of all, managing prestigious enterprises requires years of experience which cannot be present in beginners. Also, I would like point out that keeping the same executive for long years would enlarge the network and authority of the company among competitors. To illustrate let us look at the example of TURKCELL, a telecom company. TURKCELL had many participant companies which had common benefits from each other before changing the institutional relationship director. Since the new director was ten years younger than the expert one, he did not know the jargon, and failed to build robust affairs by having influence. Consequently, it is pretty obvious that experience in a certain position is a key factor led to success.
Furthermore, the best way to keep an enterprise’s success stable is minimizing the deadly mistakes such as explosions in a field which are mostly caused by poor management, so it would be much better to let experts to manage as much as they can. Honeywell, for example, an automation company, changed its whole executive board members including the CEO in order to refresh company’s vision, but terrible supervisory mistakes started to occur, and one of the natural gas tanks exploded in Afghanistan. After the accident in which forty workers died, Joseph Carter, new CEO of Honeywell, resigned. Hence, all the evidence above demonstrates that steadfast and successful leaders should be allowed to do their job no matter what.
Admittedly, some may argue that in any field, the leadership should necessarily be devolved from those in power to newcomer executives after five years to revitalize the vision. This is true especially when it comes to ability to adapt hot topics such as digital transformation, industry 4.0 etc. In addition, society loves the change because of the mobility it brings. However, the above argument does not provide sufficient support to claim that all of them will become thriving leaders of future, because as change duration gets shorter, more instability occurs.
In conclusion, although there are some advantages of frequent revitalization of leadership, actually, it restricts the growing speed of the institution. As long as some measurements are performed, or some areas are involved allowing experienced leaders to continue their role is more beneficial. In fact, this phenomenon holds for any field.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 567, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... gets shorter, more instability occurs. In conclusion, although there are some a...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, first, furthermore, hence, however, look, may, so, well, while, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 58.6224719101 109% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2492.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 470.0 442.535393258 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30212765957 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65612321451 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97410279923 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 287.0 215.323595506 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.610638297872 0.4932671777 124% => OK
syllable_count: 788.4 704.065955056 112% => 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: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4701736702 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.666666667 118.986275619 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.380952381 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.09523809524 5.21951772744 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216160188054 0.243740707755 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0594850564628 0.0831039109588 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751514661052 0.0758088955206 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115204764952 0.150359130593 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0575232832325 0.0667264976115 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => 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: 13.76 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.67 8.38706741573 115% => OK
difficult_words: 147.0 100.480337079 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.