Understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
The topic raises a contreversial issue of wheather understanding of the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership or not. Indisputably, past provides various knowlegeable insights which might help in effective functioning of today. Nevertheless, change is a continuous process and no organization can escape this phenomenan which results in past knowledge of little use. Thus, I generally disagee with the opinion that understanding the past is of great usage for leaders and would argue that knowledge of earlier events renders very less importance in leadership role.
First of all, as mentioned earlier- change is a continuous processs. No company's past is same as its present in all aspect. I would like to point out that the people working in the organization keep changing and so does the projects, mode of work and many other aspects. To illustrate , an example from my personal life will be compelling example for this. When I joined my work organisation, there were only 4 people and all of us used to work on on-site projects which involved everday travels. With time, the nature of our projetcs changes and the organization started working more on big data, from their cubicals without any need to go on-site. Moreover, the strength of the team increase to 20 people. In this circumstance, knowledge of past projects, methods, team schema would not have helped me in leading the team. But the adaption to new methods did help. Consequently, it made me realise knowledge of past is not of much importance.
Furthermore, keeping focus on the past can impede leaders to be abreast of the current trend and new updates required for an organization. For instance,in continuation of my provious example, if my leader had focused on the on-site projects only and would not have given much importance to the new big data projects. Surely, the company would have faced a huge loss as the the big data was the next trending thing. Indulging the organization with technical projects was right decision and helped the organization to flourish. Therefore, both commom sense and personal experience of minehave helped me in establishing that knowledge of past is of minimal inportance for leadership.
Admittedly, understanding of past can be helpful in some aspects too. This is true especially when it comes to the company's policy which do not change frequently should be carefully understood. However, the above agrument is quite limited to support the claim in general terms.
In conclusion, although there can be a few instances when past's knowledge is useful. But in the larger picture, leaders should focus on present and not in past for effective functioning.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 285, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...rk and many other aspects. To illustrate , an example from my personal life will b...
^^
Line 9, column 152, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , in
...quired for an organization. For instance,in continuation of my provious example, if...
^^^
Line 9, column 370, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...company would have faced a huge loss as the the big data was the next trending thing. I...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 370, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...company would have faced a huge loss as the the big data was the next trending thing. I...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, for instance, in conclusion, in general, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 58.6224719101 131% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2266.0 2235.4752809 101% => OK
No of words: 442.0 442.535393258 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12669683258 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96151172496 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5407239819 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 698.4 704.065955056 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.088768689 60.3974514979 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.4166666667 118.986275619 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4166666667 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 5.21951772744 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.155653484192 0.243740707755 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0447935142676 0.0831039109588 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0534524625254 0.0758088955206 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0964572047476 0.150359130593 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0762376482349 0.0667264976115 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.1392134831 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.