标题: 【kaleidoscope】第四次作业issue70 by rjyuu [打印本页] 作者: rjyuu 时间: 2009-8-7 22:59:00 标题: 【kaleidoscope】第四次作业issue70 by rjyuu
本帖最后由 rjyuu 于 2009-8-7 23:04 编辑
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."
I agree with the speaker that revitalization is necessary for most enterprise to achieve success. Admittedly sometimes we witness great leaders who keep being in the position but never fail his people--like Roosevelt, the only U.S. President to be reelected three times and whose great deal rescues Americans from the great depression--Yet on most occasions, if an enterprise is to achieve success, revitalization is necessary, and those in power must step down after a certain period.
No one can deny that consistency of leadership do much good to an enterprise. On one hand, it gives the newly appointed leader enough time to get familiar with his new responsibility and new colleagues. On the other hand, consistency of leadership saves the employees a lot of time and energy adapting themselves to their new bosses. It is even more meaningful when it comes to its effect of avoiding situations in which a leader, in pursuit of a short-term prosperity, does damage to an enterprise’s interest in the long run, as it happened in China--In China, where civilian servants are frequently changed, whether a governor could be promoted or not depends on how quickly the local economy grows during his term. That’s why many governors choose to build profitable plants and sacrifice local environment in exchange for a charming economical increasing rate .These plants, which ruined local biosphere, always serve as a perfect roadbed for the current governor to a higher position, yet leave the next governor into abysmal despair and endless environmental disaster to local people. Obviously none of this will happen if there is a consistency in leadership. And that explains why we can not change leaders too frequently.
But too much consistency could also bring about great trouble. To start with, anyone will get bored if s/he repeats exactly the same life routine year in and year out --leaders, after all are humans. No change in leadership for too long a time will make the one in charge sluggish, dramatically debasing the his efficiency and discouraging the underling’s passion for work-- since obviously there is no room for promotion no matter how hard one works. Another problem lies in that without new leader, together with his unique knowledge and experience joining an enterprise, people are losing the chance to meet new ideas from the outside world, a world changing at a speed faster than ever. Hardly any leader could always perform well with the change of time using his own method. And at that time, a change in leadership instead of blindly trusting the old leader may be the best way to deal with it. Finally, changing the leadership at a proper speed prevents despot and corruption from happening. Since the underlings’ destinies are no longer held by one single man, they will feel much more free to express their opinions instead of withholding it for fear that disagreement may cause the one in charge to be unpleasant, which in return will murder their own future. And since no one will be in charge for all times, there is less need to give the leader bribe. Corruption, as we all know, always happen in countries where leadership never changes and all powers are grasped by one man.
As discussed above, the art of revitalization through new leadership lies in how often we change the leadership, too frequent or too will both cause troubles. 5 years as a term may not suit every profession, yet the proposal itself is undoubtedly a good idea. It’s only that before we put it into practice, more investigation concerning the profession’s own features should be made in order to finally decide what the best length of each term of leadership is.