Issue70 Whether to change leaders every a few years
70"In any profession--business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."
---------
18:58
---------
In the age of intensive and ever changing competitions that abound every realm, effective and reliable leadership plays a more and more pivotal role in competitions of business, politics, education, and so forth. I fundamentally agree that any enterprise should keep alert to and ready for new treats and opportunities, and therefore revitalization through new leadership might be an advisable choice. Nevertheless, not all organizations should let their leaders step down after certain years. It needs a case-by-case analysis to answer whether replacing leaders from time to time can revitalize their organizations into better ones.
Generally, if a leader (no matter how great) remains in power too long, his or her physiological or psychological decay will inevitably lead to wane of the leadership. Besides, long leadership of a single person usually dampens his or her creativity and bravery by routines. A worse thing is, consciously or unconsciously, the one in power may manipulate or just ease the promotions of some people (despite how much their true contribution to the organization is) that he or she is fond of. Such clique, and perhaps the leader itself, will abuse the power and thus harm the organization.
Today, under the pressure of heated and variable competitions, few (if there are any) organizations can afford the abused or out-of-date leadership. Since most leaders who are still human beings have their limits to longtime leadership, as mentioned above, new leaders are called for to replace the old ones and thus more likely to bring in new ideas and passions.
However, some leaders in some organizations still function well, since longtime leadership has its advantages in comparison with continually shifting leadership. Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, is a good case in point. He successfully lead and reformed GE from a clumsy and ill giant into an agile and strong one. The span of his leadership was over twenty years. The founder of Wal Mart, the greatest superstore group, also controlled the corporation for most of his life. From such successful leaders, we can discover that longtime leadership of the right persons can inspire significantly their sense of the royalty to their organizations. In addition, successful organizations invariably have their own insightful strategies and healthy cultures, which basically attribute to their leaders who have worked there long enough to foster these strategies and cultures.
If every enterprise replaces its CEO and the like every a few years, the legendary CEOs like Jack Welch will probably fall in danger of extinction. Successful leadership differs in different organizations. A new leader needs time to delve into his or her organization to get familiar with it. Thereby, unfortunately, before he or she has managed to put everything in track, time will be up. Moreover, new leaders shifting from place to place usually feel like a super employee other than master of the organizations they are in. As a result, they tend to focus on short-run interests of their organizations. Sometimes, they even cheat the organizations that reward them only according to their recent performances.
In sum, although longtime leadership in most cases is detrimental to organizations, there are some leaders who can meet long-run interests of their enterprises and who are not easily replaceable. "Homeless" leaders, in contrast, may fail to guarantee the viability of their new "homes". If such leaders abounded the society, it would not be as good news as it seems.
--------
20:15 偶看懂你的结构了。
一般来说--》如今--》但是--》坏后果
结构性不是“非常”强
这个文章偶见过比较好的结构是
企业与那些行业是不同的--》那些行业是如何如何的（3-4段，有相似的可以合并）--》企业是如何的--》如果改的坏后果（可要可不要，象你的倒数第2段） trees主要只看了每一段的第一句吗？我这里没有特别针对企业，毕竟enterprise还有“事业”的意思，只不过举business方面的例子并加以讨论是我比较熟悉的而已。
页:
[1]