Embedded Files
Дата публикации: Jul 11, 2016 3:32:22 PM
Клише для эссе и ответов на вопросы
Фразы для оформления каркаса эссе.
A letter of complaint structure. Linking phrases.
An old ox makes a straight furrow, as the saying goes.
Companies should encourage employees who work in a high position to leave at the age of 55 in order to give opportunities to the new generation.
1.
I do not think that commercial companies should force to retire the top managers at the age 55.
It would be an impractical rule because this age is not so high nowadays as it seemed to be earlier.
Besides, elderly people usually have much experience and they could bring very good results.
The first reason why I believe so is that nowadays people try to have a healthy lifestyle - not smoking, eating less fat and having regular jogging.
So, the person at the age of 55 has usually a versatile and agile mind.
According to the Harvard Business Review, the median age of the best-performing CEOs in the world was 58.
The second reason why I feel this way is that elderly people are usually very experienced and sensible.
Business decisions require self-control and patience.
So, these people could give the new generation a start in these skills.
These two reasons lead us to the final and the main reason why I think companies should not force to retire the top managers at the age 55.
The investors should take into consideration the previous period company income and management policy of the top manager but not his or her age.
It is not the good reason to retire the boss just because giving opportunities to the new generation.
To sum up I would like to say that business is about making money, not establishing rules. So, companies should consider pros and cons changing their presidents and CEOs according to the results and the skills of these people. The age is not an option.
I do not think that commercial companies should force to retire the top managers at the age 55.
It would be an impractical rule because this age is not so high nowadays as it seemed to be earlier.
Besides, elderly people usually have much experience and they could bring very good results.
The first reason why I believe so is that nowadays people try to have a healthy lifestyle - not smoking, eating less fat and having regular jogging.
So, the person at the age of 55 has usually a versatile and agile mind.
According to the Harvard Business Review, the median age of the best-performing CEOs in the world was 58.
The second reason why I feel this way is that elderly people are usually very experienced and sensible.
Business decisions require self-control and patience.
So, these people could give the new generation a start in these skills.
These two reasons lead us to the final and the main reason why I think companies should not force to retire the top managers at the age 55.
The investors should take into consideration the previous period company income and management policy of the top manager but not his or her age.
It is not the good reason to retire the boss just because giving opportunities to the new generation.
To sum up I would like to say that business is about making money, not establishing rules. So, companies should consider pros and cons changing their presidents and CEOs according to the results and the skills of these people. The age is not an option.
264.
2.
I do not think that commercial companies should force to retire the top managers at the age 55.
It would be an impractical rule because this age is not so high nowadays as it seemed to be earlier.
Besides, elderly people usually have much experience and they could bring very good results.
The first reason why I believe so is that nowadays people try to have a healthy lifestyle - not smoking, eating less fat and having regular jogging.
So, the person at the age of 55 has usually a versatile and agile mind.
According to the latest Harvard Business Review, the median age of the best-performing CEOs in the world was 58.
The second reason why I feel this way is that elderly people are usually very experienced and sensible.
So, these people could give the new generation a start in being shrewd and thrifty.
These two reasons lead us to the final and the main reason why I think companies should not force to retire the top managers at the age 55.
The investors should take into consideration the previous period company's income.
As well as management policy and skills of the top manager but not his or her age.
It is not the good reason to retire the boss just because giving opportunities to the new generation.
To sum up I would like to say that business is about making money, not establishing rules. So, companies should consider pros and cons changing their presidents and CEOs according to the results and the skills of these people. The age is not an option.
I do not think that commercial companies should force to retire the top managers at the age 55.
It would be an impractical rule because this age is not so high nowadays as it seemed to be earlier.
Besides, elderly people usually have much experience and they could bring very good results.
The first reason why I believe so is that nowadays people try to have a healthy lifestyle - not smoking, eating less fat and having regular jogging.
So, the person at the age of 55 has usually a versatile and agile mind.
According to the latest Harvard Business Review, the median age of the best-performing CEOs in the world was 58.
The second reason why I feel this way is that elderly people are usually very experienced and sensible.
So, these people could give the new generation a start in being shrewd and thrifty.
These two reasons lead us to the final and the main reason why I think companies should not force to retire the top managers at the age 55.
The investors should take into consideration the previous period company's income.
As well as management policy and skills of the top manager but not his or her age.
It is not the good reason to retire the boss just because giving opportunities to the new generation.
To sum up I would like to say that business is about making money, not establishing rules. So, companies should consider pros and cons changing their presidents and CEOs according to the results and the skills of these people. The age is not an option.
265
3.
I do not think that commercial companies should force to retire the top managers at the age 55.
It would be an impractical rule because this age is not so high nowadays as it seemed to be earlier.
Besides, elderly people usually have much experience and they could bring very good results.
The first reason why I believe so is that nowadays people try to have a healthy lifestyle - not smoking, eating less fat and having regular jogging.
So, the person at the age of 55 usually has a versatile and quite agile mind.
According to the latest Harvard Business Review, the median age of the best-performing CEOs in the world was 58.
The second reason why I feel this way about elderly top managers that is they are usually very experienced and sensible people.
So, they could give the new generation a start in being shrewd and thrifty.
These two reasons lead us to the final and the main reason why I think companies should not encourage their bosses to leave at the age 55.
If the shareholders want to change the top manager, they should take into consideration the previous period company's income, as well as his or her management policy and skills, but not the age.
It is not a good reason to retire the boss just because to give opportunities to the new generation.
To sum up, I would like to say that business is about making money, not establishing rules. So, companies should consider pros and cons changing their presidents and CEOs according to the results and the skills of these people. The age is not an option.
I do not think that commercial companies should force to retire the top managers at the age 55.
It would be an impractical rule because this age is not so high nowadays as it seemed to be earlier.
Besides, elderly people usually have much experience and they could bring very good results.
The first reason why I believe so is that nowadays people try to have a healthy lifestyle - not smoking, eating less fat and having regular jogging.
So, the person at the age of 55 usually has a versatile and quite agile mind.
According to the latest Harvard Business Review, the median age of the best-performing CEOs in the world was 58.
The second reason why I feel this way about elderly top managers that is they are usually very experienced and sensible people.
So, they could give the new generation a start in being shrewd and thrifty.
These two reasons lead us to the final and the main reason why I think companies should not encourage their bosses to leave at the age 55.
If the shareholders want to change the top manager, they should take into consideration the previous period company's income, as well as his or her management policy and skills, but not the age.
It is not a good reason to retire the boss just because to give opportunities to the new generation.
To sum up, I would like to say that business is about making money, not establishing rules. So, companies should consider pros and cons changing their presidents and CEOs according to the results and the skills of these people. The age is not an option.
274
Final
Companies should encourage employees who work in a high position to leave at the age of 55 in order to give opportunities to the new generation.
No Country For Old Men?
I do not think that commercial companies should force to retire the top managers at the age 55. It would be an impractical rule because this age is not so high nowadays as it seemed to be earlier. Besides, elderly people usually have much experience and they could bring very good results.
The first reason why I believe so is that nowadays people try to have a healthy lifestyle - not smoking, eating less fat and having regular jogging. So, the person at the age of 55 usually has a versatile and quite agile mind. According to the latest Harvard Business Review, the median age of the best-performing CEOs in the world was 58.
The second reason why I feel this way about elderly top managers that is they are usually very experienced and sensible people. So, they could give the new generation a start in being shrewd and thrifty.
These two reasons lead us to the final and the main reason why I think companies should not encourage their bosses to leave at the age 55. If the shareholders want to change the top manager, they should take into consideration the previous period company's income, as well as his or her management policy and skills, but not the age. It is not a good reason to retire the boss just because to give opportunities to the new generation.
To sum up, I would like to say that business is about making money, not establishing rules. So, companies should consider pros and cons changing their presidents and CEOs according to the results and the skills of these people. The age is not an option.
Correction
I do not think that commercial companies should force to retire the top managers at the age 55. It would be an impractical rule because this age is not so high nowadays as it seemed to be earlier. Besides, elderly people usually have much experience and they could bring very good results.
The first reason why I believe so is that nowadays people try to have a healthy lifestyle - not smoking, eating less fat and having regular jogging. So, the person at the age of 55 usually has a versatile and quite agile mind. According to the latest Harvard Business Review, the median age of the best-performing CEOs in the world was 58.
The second reason why I feel this way about elderly top managers is that is they are usually very experienced and sensible people. So, they could give the new generation a start in being shrewd and thrifty.
These two reasons lead us to the final and the main reason why I think companies should not encourage their bosses to leave at the age of 55. If the shareholders want to change the top manager, they should take into consideration the previous period company's income, as well as his or her management policy and skills, but not the age. It is not a good reason to retire the boss just because of giving to give opportunities to the new generation.
To sum up, I would like to say that business is about making money, not establishing rules. So, companies should consider pros and cons changing their presidents and CEOs according to the results and the skills of these people. The age is not an option.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse