ISSUE70 【CSMY 作文互改小组】 第八次作用外

stevenhuUID: 172722

TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "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."<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
WORDS: 505          TIME: 1:05:00          DATE: <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />2007-1-25

I generally agree with the speaker's attitude that all the professions should have a chance to change their leaders in certain years, in order to keep success of their group. But to the speaker's specific assertion that it should be 5 years before stepping down the current leader, I take a very conservative attitude and believe this should be vary according to specific conditions.

Looking back into history and observing contemporary society, we can find out that there are various groups--regardless of their profession-- which achieve long term success through periodically changing their leaders. In modern business society, large cooperation such as Microsoft, General Electric and so on do all have their special committee that can resign their management leaders any time. Democratic political powers such as United States, British, have the legislation that give people right to elect their leader every 4 years. On the contrary, in history we see many bureaucratic powers who are lead by consistent leaders earn and maintain their powers solely on brute force and demagoguery.  These positive and negative examples vividly demonstrate that because of the pressure of being resigned from current position these leaders usually take a more active policy to boost the group they serve, therefore benefits both the groups and leaders significantly.

However, the scenario that certain enterprise keeps success by under the same leaders management also widely exists in society. In politics, we can refer Stalin, who succesfully transformed the Soviet Union from a agricultural society to world's second largest industrial country in nearly 10-15 years, and successfully maintained this prosperous for his last life. In the fierce competing business fields, lots of Japanese multinationals, such as Panasonic, SONY and SHARP, earn their success by consistent leaderships.  Even in America, a country who strive its success largely due to its scientific constitution arrangement, advocates its President of Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, manages U.S.'s financial affairs for nearly 20 years. Obviously, consist leaders may give a enterprise a more consistent policy, which can support the enterprise take pains to perform important revolutions or  advances, a characteristic advantage which is usually impossible for leaders just have time-limited right.

Though the consistent policy may achieve more great success, it equally breeds failures. It is undeniable that people more or less work to strive for personal or private benefits. On manipulating the resources to make progress for the enterprise, leader's long time successful management would inevitably cause other people's too much credit on him or her, which provides the leader with opportunity to manipulate the resources for his or her own benefit.  Lots of King's who was assigned to govern his country for all his life are expelled or even killed by people for his often extravagant luxury personal life.

Based on above discussion, though consistent leadership would achieve huge advancements, it also leads to sever problems which can be fixed by periodically evaluating and reauthorization. Therefore, I support the speaker's attitude that we should always change leaders to maintain success, but it should not be five years punctually.