Issue70【Persistence 小组】第13次作业

iamstoicUID: 2294314

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."

In any profession is the surest path to success revitalization through new leadership? While this claim has significant merit with respect to most cases of enterprise, I take exception with it for there is some cases of the successful leadership continuity.

Old leadership, whether of a declining or a thriving business, should step down after a certain period in most cases. The leaders at whom people are disappointed are less likely to satisfy people for they have been tainted by the sins or negativity associated with their failure. In that case, no matter what reform they intend to try, they would probably find themselves bogged down in the old tensions. Additionally, those leaders who have achieved some success often get increasingly rigid and complacent and therefore they are more reluctant to embrace new ideas, which may be more effective than the old ones, let alone to promote a transformation.

New leadership, to the contrary, is generally required in order to revise the ideas, beliefs and values people held in the past and to bring about a remarkable change, if necessary. New leaders, uninfected by conventional politics and endowed with fresh perspectives, are more likely to try new things and abandon old ones which are incorrect. It is the new leaders who have the responsibility to replace the pluralistic ignorance, which is the result of old leadership, with open discussion since they can more readily remove barriers that previous superintendent had created. Only with the help of new leading ideologies can the enterprise be replenished with fresh blood and hold back the negative effects from old leadership.

On the other hand, under some circumstances if no one would be more competent, if the leader would come up with innovations, and more importantly, assume a long-term complex projects with rare determination and dedication, he/she should not resign after the first tenure. One case in point is Franklin D. Roosevelt who served longer than any other president of the United States. He held office from 1933 until his death in 1945. During his presidency he led the United States through two great crises--the Great Depression and World War II. This illustrates the point that had the turnover of leaders occur it would be difficult to maintain the continuity that needed in special instances.

In the final analysis, I agree those in power should not stay in the position after the five-year term for the most part. However, the speaker’s claim overstates the importance of the turnaround of leadership, at least to some extent. Those leaders with unusual creativity, initiative and devotion can ensure success for any enterprise.

worenleflyUID: 2270315

In any profession is the surest path to success revitalization through new leadership? While this claim has significant merit with respect to most cases of enterprise, I take exception with it for there is some cases of the successful leadership continuity.

Old leadership, whether of a declining or a thriving business, should step down after a certain period in most cases. The leaders at whom people are disappointed are less likely to satisfy people for they have been tainted by the sins or negativity associated with their failure. In that case, no matter what reform they intend to try, they would probably find themselves bogged down in the old tensions. Additionally, those leaders who have achieved some success often get increasingly rigid and complacent and(and 换成 ，怎么样？) therefore they are more reluctant to embrace new ideas, which may be more effective than the old ones, let alone to promote a transformation. (, therefore they may be more reluctant to embrace new ideas, which is possibly more effective, let alone promote a transformation. 对这句改动了，感觉不合适我们再探讨)

New leadership, to the contrary, is generally required in order to revise the ideas, beliefs and values people held in the past(这里是不是也要加上一个逗号呢？) and to bring about a remarkable change, if necessary. New leaders, uninfected(很遗憾我没查到这个词，但是有noninfected 不过十形容词，本人语法很弱不知这里是直接用还是前面加上being之类的，你自己看一下啦，然后一定要告诉我结果啊~) by conventional politics and endowed with fresh perspectives, are more likely to try new things and abandon old ones which are incorrect.(and abandon the incorrect old ones 这样简洁点) It is the new leaders who have the responsibility to replace the pluralistic ignorance(知识有限，不知道这样的表述是否正确), which is the result of old leadership, with open discussion since they can more readily remove barriers that previous superintendent(这个词的主要意思不是领导者，感觉这里用这个词不妥) had created. Only with the help of new leading ideologies can the enterprise be replenished with fresh blood and hold back the negative effects from old leadership.(倒装很好的，赞~)

On the other hand, under some circumstances if no one would be more competent, if the leader would come up with innovations, and more importantly, assume a long-term complex projects with rare determination and dedication, he/she should not resign(用辞职不合适吧？) after the first tenure. One case in point is Franklin D. Roosevelt who served longer than any other president of the United States. He held office from 1933 until his death in 1945. During his presidency he led the United States through two great crises--the Great Depression and World War II. This illustrates the point that had the turnover of leaders occur it would be difficult to maintain the continuity that needed in special instances. (这段很好~)

In the final analysis, I agree those in power should not stay in the position after the five-year term for the most part. However, the speaker’s claim overstates the importance of the turnaround of leadership, at least to some extent. Those leaders with unusual creativity, initiative and devotion can ensure success for any enterprise.
(论点：1. 在一定条件下，老领导不应长期握权  2.除旧立新上新的领导是普遍需要的 3.另一方面如果无人胜任或者领导人在进行革新，更重要的是作长期规划，这；样的话不能换领导。  但就论点而言，第三点的circumstance的条件即第二个if说服力不够。加油！！ )