[i习作temp] issue70 【Goal to Reach Excellence小组】第10次作业 [复制链接]

lkjoyce
UID: 2343550

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 3
寄托币: 771
注册时间: 2007-5-28
精华: 0
帖子: 5

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-2-17 12:01:28 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

IS-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."

The speaker claims that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership. And the leader should step down after five years in any profession. In my opinion, however, this statement is too absolute. Revitalization through new leadership has many advantages, but it not fit to every profession.

Admittedly, to some extent, it is necessary to change leadership after a period of time in lots of realms, such as governments and many other institutions. As we all known, every leader has a different view and method to deal with the problem. New leadership could bring in some new ideas and infuse the institutions energy and innovation. Too long time leadership will cause stereotype of the leader so that they cannot think or cope with affairs with a new way. Thereby, the institutions will lack innovation and creative spirit, and the employees may also feel boring or lack enthusiasm under such leadership. But a new leadership could definitely change this situation because a new leader would ignore the old regulations and easy to discover flaws existed in the old system. When leadership has been changed, all employees would also feel fresher so that inspire them work hard with more energy.

Moreover, limiting terms of leadership can also avoid autarchy and corruption of the leader. Firstly, provide that a leadership never changed, it must lead to the arbitrary mind as well as laches of the leader. For example, a mayor who knows he will never be replaced by others, he may abuse his power to seek benefits for himself and neglect the people's need due to lacking the crisis feeling of losing his position. Secondly, long term leadership could establish a large relationship net for leaders and cause them corrupt. The reason is that many people would adulate them and ask them for help because of the power in their hand，so that the leaders would become to bribees and do some unjust things. It is harmful for the leadership and whole management. Additionally, without competition and crisis feeling, a leader easily to become too lazy to try his best to work and it will influence the morale of employees.

However, it might be not so necessary to often change leaders in certain realms, like business field. New leadership also has some disadvantages, including that a new leader always lack some necessary skills and experiences, as well as he may hastily make some decisions which are not good enough. But an old leader could clearly know about the situations in his company and be familiar with their competitors. Consider about the Microsoft Corporation, it is hard to image how it could be so successful if Bill Gates left after the corporation established just five years. Furthermore, forming a company's culture needs long time accumulation and the ideal of a business leader would also cost long time to be accomplished. Too early or too frequently to change leaders may interrupt a great plan and even undermine a good company.

To sum up, limiting the term of leadership sometimes is needed and has many advantages. However, it is not always the case. Many realms are not fit to change leaders too much. So, when come to this issue, it must be treated case-by-case.