Understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership.
A common question which confronts new leaders is if they should try to understand the past before starting their new journey or let bygones be bygones and single-mindedly work towards their vision for the people they lead. While unnecessarily poring over the past is not advisable, I would like to argue that giving the past its due credit is always benefitial.
Learning about the past can open up a new perspective for a leader. It can provide valuable insight into the decisions taken by his/her predecessors as well as the history of the people he hopes to lead. New leaders are less likely to repeat the same mistakes as those who came before them. If an upcoming political leader were to run in the elections from a certain electorate for the first time, he would most definitely need to learn about the history of the citizens he hopes to win over. Without a meticulous awareness about the past, understanding why those before him couldn't win, he can't hope to win the elections.
Many a times, looking at a past can help you get out of a sticky situation you face in the present. This is especially valid in the field of science. A researcher might make a miraculous breakthrough simply by looking at past data from his failed experiments. Crucial clues can be hidden in many past failures which can prove to be a boon.
However, it is also important that leaders don't unnecessarily keep looking for something that isn't to be found. Instead, moving on and focussing your efforts on future endeavors can give better dividends. For instance, suppose a CEO of a multinational corporation is trying to figure out why the company's productivity has been falling down recently. Incessantly poring over minute details may not give any solution. Instead he should look to other alternatives and try to boost the morale of the employees by giving them an incentive to work harder.
In conclusion, the past should definitely matter to leaders. However, any such retrospection should be within limits, so as to not lose focus of the greater objective.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 576, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...ast, understanding why those before him couldnt win, he cant hope to win the elections....
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 592, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ng why those before him couldnt win, he cant hope to win the elections. Many a ti...
^^^^
Line 3, column 592, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'cants'.
Suggestion: cants
...ng why those before him couldnt win, he cant hope to win the elections. Many a ti...
^^^^
Line 5, column 6, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a time' or simply 'times'?
Suggestion: a time; times
...cant hope to win the elections. Many a times, looking at a past can help you get out...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 44, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ever, it is also important that leaders dont unnecessarily keep looking for somethin...
^^^^
Line 7, column 95, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ssarily keep looking for something that isnt to be found. Instead, moving on and foc...
^^^^
Line 7, column 417, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...nute details may not give any solution. Instead he should look to other alternatives an...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 119, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
... retrospection should be within limits, so as to not lose focus of the greater objective...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, look, may, so, well, while, as to, for instance, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1708.0 2235.4752809 76% => OK
No of words: 351.0 442.535393258 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8660968661 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32839392791 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81210869146 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 215.323595506 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.592592592593 0.4932671777 120% => OK
syllable_count: 539.1 704.065955056 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.8841100317 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.8888888889 118.986275619 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.55555555556 5.21951772744 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 7.80617977528 102% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => 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: 0.111331148876 0.243740707755 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0350926356711 0.0831039109588 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0407751698727 0.0758088955206 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0600573641601 0.150359130593 40% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0364846566998 0.0667264976115 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.1392134831 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.1639044944 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 100.480337079 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.