Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
Leaders of countries, corporations, etc. have many responsibilities and challenges that they must face all throughout their time as a leader. Among those challenges is whether or not leaders adhere to a set of principals and objectives, or compromise with the public. I say that leaders mostly should adhere to principals.
Firstly, abandoning principal for the sake of compromise for staying in power is unethical. For example, a politician may decide to make campaign promises about increasing scientific funding to cure all diseases that are demanded by most voters who may not understand that there are so many technical complications involved in this kind of promise. This kind of compromise could elect him again for another term in office. However, it is best for the politician to not lie, but to keep adhereing to his ethical principals to avoid wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on a plan that is not feasible, even if it costs him re-election.
In addition, the leaders must try to maintain the well-being people. Granted, it is almost impossible to keep 100% of the population well, the leader of say a company should not yield to pressures that will cost the well being of many for the better off of a few. To illustrate, suppose a high-rise Manhattan business meeting on the top floor of a huge corporate office has a meeting. During the meeting, the execuatives pressure the CEO into replacing workers with robots after a surge in wages to lower cost of paying employees and to increase their own wages. The CEO should stick to his principals and reject this proposition. Thus, with great power comes great responsibility, even if it is not mentioned in the CEO guidance manual. If the CEO approved this proposition, it would only increase the wages of these rich executives witch will sit in a bank untouched, while the workers will scatter to find another job. Therefore, since the low-wage workers’ well-being is at risk, leaders should stick to principal and not to opinions of others.
On the other hand, some leaders could be effective by compromise rather than specific objectives. For instance, a leader of a government proposes funding a space program that was promised as an objective a long time ago. However, all of the sudden, with elections soon to be around the corner, people have decided that they will not relect member of the government if they do not spend that money instead on schools with free lunches. The leaders should compromise with the public and instead go with the publics’ objective rather than their own. Since the public pays taxes, then it is fair that it should have a say in what the objectives should be.
All in all, most of the time leaders have ethical duties that tie them to principals, but at times objectives should be forsaken for compromise.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 169, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
... as a leader. Among those challenges is whether or not leaders adhere to a set of principals a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 231, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE_SUDDEN[1]
Message: This phrase is nonstandard. Did you mean 'all of a sudden'?
Suggestion: all of a sudden
... an objective a long time ago. However, all of the sudden, with elections soon to be around the c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, for instance, in addition, kind of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 58.6224719101 125% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2355.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 477.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93710691824 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82900666364 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517819706499 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 721.8 704.065955056 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.9431529647 60.3974514979 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.045454545 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6818181818 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.59090909091 5.21951772744 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
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: 0.212862910594 0.243740707755 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0695276715983 0.0831039109588 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0542428230979 0.0758088955206 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12399445874 0.150359130593 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0357303563062 0.0667264976115 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.1392134831 90% => 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: 11.37 12.1639044944 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 100.480337079 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => 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.