Although sound moral judgment is an important characteristic of an effective leader, it is not as important as a leader’s ability to maintain the respect of his or her peers.
The mark of a good leader is, simply put, their ability to lead their peers. Successful leading can only come from respect, which hasn't necessarily to do with morality. An effective leader often uses their discretionary powers to gauge whether a certain situation calls for sound moral judgement, by honing in on the best (most rewarding and least harmful) path to be taken by the group they're in charge of.
Say a [good, just] leader finds themselves in a dilemma, wherein they must kick one of their peers out of the group upon finding out that the peer had secretly planned to stage a coup against them. This course of action would indubitably lead to the rest of the group losing all respect for the leader, given that the leader reveals feeling threatened by a peer's potential plotting. However, the leader has an alternative, wherein they turn their head the other way and instead of confronting the peer in question, simply call a group meeting to assert their power and restore peace, thereby making it known to the others that if they try something underhanded, they would risk their position in the group. This is sure to resonate with the group, and while fear-induced respect is not ideal, it is always an option when faced with a moral dilemma of this scale.
Respect is a strong force, and cannot be demanded but must be earned. That is something leaders often forget, and so, if a leader uses their decision-making abilities in a way that aligns with the group's ideals but doesn't necessarily reflect the most philosphically moral ideas, they are bound to receive peer respect. Oftentimes, peers under an umbrella of group norms share similar values and view respect in a common way. They are likelier to readily provide their leader with respect if they sense that the leader is performing their duties in a manner that is in the group's best interests, regardless of the underlined moral implications of those duties.
This is not to say that a leader should altogether disregard morals, and portray deceitful, cowardly, bossy behaviour for personal gain paying no heed to the difference between right and wrong. That would, first of all, be the quickest way to lose the respect of their peers, which would hence prove counterintuitive to their respect-earning mission. Overall, one is bequeathed the title of leader because their judgement is trusted by the bequeather of the same. That trust allows the leader room for independent judgement, and they in turn are determined to carry out their role to the best of their abilities. It is a win-win system designed to keep everyone happy.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-30 | rahatumar9072 | 50 | view |
| 2024-03-30 | rahatumar9072 | 50 | view |
| 2023-10-30 | qwertyy | 54 | view |
| 2023-09-24 | Adelaida | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-18 | Mayuresh08 | 50 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 131, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...ading can only come from respect, which hasnt necessarily to do with morality. An eff...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 386, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they're
...t harmful path to be taken by the group theyre in charge of. Say a [good, just] le...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 216, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... that aligns with the groups ideals but doesnt necessarily reflect the most philosphic...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 409, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a common way" with adverb for "common"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...s share similar values and view respect in a common way. They are likelier to readily provide t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, so, while, 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: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => 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: 2167.0 2235.4752809 97% => OK
No of words: 443.0 442.535393258 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89164785553 5.05705443957 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64441725891 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534988713318 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 646.2 704.065955056 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.975059952 60.3974514979 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.4375 118.986275619 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6875 23.4991977007 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.4375 5.21951772744 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => 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: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.229025206904 0.243740707755 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.083899561968 0.0831039109588 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0495437872918 0.0758088955206 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160771377855 0.150359130593 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0490540335013 0.0667264976115 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.1392134831 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.8420337079 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.1743820225 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.38 12.1639044944 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.