Understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership.
As the famous saying goes, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". I disagree with the given statement, and believe that it is essential for any aspiring leader to look for lessons in history. That is how the mistakes that led to failure in the past can be avoided. But dwelling too much in the past when the situation demands a fresh narrative can also cause harm.
Given that the prevalent situation is suitable, we can always look back into the lives of the greatest historical leaders for inspiration. Their insight will help anyone who holds a position of leadership even in the present. For example, 50 years from now, the leadership of a tech company could look back at Nokia. They would be able to analyze what caused the company that held the largest market-share, to nearly collapse. Lessons such as not adapting to changing user requirements, avoiding upcoming trends could be learnt from this case study. The executives would then be able to avoid falling into the same traps.
At the same time, looking only at the past, and not thinking ahead can slump innovative ideas. Any visionary leader must be willing to take unprecedented measures to ensure the betterment of the institution, be it a country or a commercial organization. Not just understanding, but correcting what went wrong in the past is what is paramount. For example, politicians regularly need to look at previous election results and retrospect what went wrong. Entire campaigns can be based on remedying past mistakes. That is how instead of discarding a venture because of historical failure, the required alterations can be made to ensure its success.
We are lucky to have relatively well documented past and making full use of it for the future is, in my opinion, the responsibility of every leader. Learning from our own mistakes is a good, but learning from those of others is even better, especially when we have a past brimming with rich experiences.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-14 | bstergios55@yahoo.com | 83 | view |
| 2019-11-30 | zzk81 | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-26 | Venkateshwar | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-24 | OliverRaab | 66 | view |
| 2019-11-23 | ken10091995 | 50 | view |
- The following is a memorandum from the office of Mayor Harrison Smith Jones In order to relieve Briggsville s notorious traffic congestion Mayor Harrison Smith Jones plans to build a multi million dollar subway system The subway will run through the major 66
- Some people believe that teaching morality should be the foundation of education. Others believe that teaching a foundation of logical reasoning would do more to produce a moral society. 83
- SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp's original headquarters. Moreov 68
- Those who see their ideas through, regardless of doubts or criticism others may express, are the ones who tend to leave a lasting legacy. 16
- According to a recent report by our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies act 82
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, look, so, then, well, for example, such as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 58.6224719101 82% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1651.0 2235.4752809 74% => OK
No of words: 333.0 442.535393258 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95795795796 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27180144563 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81457487761 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 215.323595506 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.582582582583 0.4932671777 118% => OK
syllable_count: 517.5 704.065955056 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => 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: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.9371391933 60.3974514979 48% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 91.7222222222 118.986275619 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5 23.4991977007 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.77777777778 5.21951772744 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.123554357094 0.243740707755 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0380427265996 0.0831039109588 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0377985822178 0.0758088955206 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0748245785916 0.150359130593 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0258412749955 0.0667264976115 39% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.1392134831 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 100.480337079 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.