[习作点评] ISSUE 8 In any profession—business [复制链接]

天蝎ATPX-4869
UID：3603938

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 71
寄托币: 276
注册时间: 2015-3-19
精华: 0
帖子: 21

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2015-3-19 20:24:49 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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 last decade has witnessed the rapid development of diverse fields such as business, politics, education, government and science all around the world. As more and more people devote themselves in pursuing the success in those fields, the question whether those in power should retire after five years has become a heated topic. I, to a great extent, agree that revitalization through new leadership is an effective method to success in enterprises. Nevertheless, we needn’t change our leaders too often.

The chief reason I vote for the resurrecting through supervisor is that we should infuse some new blood into the leadership. As far as I know, American people elect their president every four years and the Congress should renew its senators every two years according to the constriction. In Chinese, we select our chairman every five years. All of these can avoid the rigidness in the government. If a person is instated for a long time, he will probably not come out effective idea and become conservative. When the global situation changes its pattern every day, a country with a lethargy authority may lag behind. Thus substituting other people for them is extremely important.

However, the speaker’s assertion is troubling in two other respects as well. Firstly, I concede revitalization is a good way to success but I won’t say it is the surest path, or the only method toward success. Almost every transnational enterprise is consisted of high-talented supervisors, excellent employees and a provident board. They work every day and night to propel the prosperity of their company. What I want to emphasize is that manager and executive officer do play an indispensable role in it. However, a successful company also needs the contribution of every people. Unilever, for example, pays more attention to the spirit of the company. If a company with sluggish workers, no matter how often it changes its leaders, it will not prosper.

Secondly, sometimes supplanting incumbent leaders can be a bad idea, especially when an organization is attempting some new things. Can you image a new-established country changing its president every five years? A leader has proposed a new medical care, the congress has voted for it. At the beginning, the program is working very well and citizens are waiting for their leader’ s next strategies, but unfortunately, his five-year is over. The president steps down before his other novelty ideas have become into practice. After that, a new leader comes into office; he must spend some time to accommodate his work. Perhaps before he does something for his people, his five-year is over again. So you can see that frequently changing high-level people may cause unexpected consequences.

In sum, I hold the view that we can’t oversimplify the issue. Novices are requited but we can’t change the leaders every five years mindlessly. Some government should change them in two years, while others should stay in offices for ten years. Different organizations should establish diversity institution due to their own conditions.

effective, profession, themselves, leadership, government

相关帖子

回应
0

使用道具举报

hardheaded
UID：3557538

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 73
寄托币: 675
注册时间: 2014-8-30
精华: 0
帖子: 134

沙发

发表于 2015-3-25 15:28:17 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 hardheaded 于 2015-3-25 15:30 编辑

The last decade has witnessed the rapid development of diverse fields such as business, politics, education, government and science all around the world. As more and more people devote themselves in pursuing the 去掉success in those fields, the question whether those in power should retire after five years has become a heated topic. I, to a great extent, agree that revitalization through new leadership is an effective method to success in enterprises. Nevertheless, we needn’t change our leaders too often.表态不够明确，没有说5年是否合适

government和politics属于一个field

The chief reason I vote for the resurrecting through changing supervisor is that we should infuse some new blood into the leadership. As far as I know, American people elect their president every four years and the Congress renews its senators every two years according to the constriction？不是constitution吗. In Chinese, we select our chairman every five years. All of these can avoid the rigidness in the government. If a person is instated for a long time, he will probably not come out effective idea 是不是语法、搭配不对and become conservative. When the global situation changes its pattern every day, a country with a lethargy authority may lag behind. Thus substituting other people for them is extremely important.

However, the speaker’s assertion is troubling in two other respects as well. Firstly, I concede revitalization is a good way to success but I won’t say it is the surest path, or the only method 题目没有这句toward success. Almost every transnational enterprise is consisted of high-talented supervisors, excellent employees and a provident board. They work every day and night to propel the prosperity of their company. What I want to emphasize is that manager and executive officer do play an indispensable role in it. However, a successful company also needs the contribution of every people. Unilever, for example, pays more attention to the spirit of the company. If a company with改成is full of sluggish workers, no matter how often it changes its leaders, it will not prosper.

Secondly, sometimes supplanting incumbent leaders can be a bad idea, especially when an organization is attempting some new things. Can you image a new-established country changing its president every five years? A leader has proposed a new medical care, the congress has voted for it. At the beginning, the program is working very well and citizens are waiting for their leader’ s next strategies, but unfortunately, his five-year is over. The president steps down before his other novel ideas have come into practice. After that, a new leader comes into office; he must spend some time to accommodate his work. Perhaps before he does something for his people, his five-year is over again. So you can see that frequently changing high-level people may cause unexpected consequences.

In sum, I hold the view that we can’t oversimplify the issue. Novices are requited but we can’t change the leaders every five years mindlessly. Some government should change them in two years, while others should stay in offices for ten years. Different organizations should establish diversity institution due to their own conditions.

使用道具举报