- 最后登录
- 2023-12-26
- 在线时间
- 500 小时
- 寄托币
- 1991
- 声望
- 28
- 注册时间
- 2008-12-3
- 阅读权限
- 10
- 帖子
- 7
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 49
- UID
- 2578616
- 声望
- 28
- 寄托币
- 1991
- 注册时间
- 2008-12-3
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 7
|
本帖最后由 wisle 于 2009-8-7 23:15 编辑
TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "In anyprofession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should stepdown after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise isrevitalization through new leadership."
WORDS: 592
TIME: 超时!!!
DATE: 2009-8-7下午 02:23:24
下午模考之作,思路堵塞,晚上改稿
=======================================================
People alwaysprefer new thing to replace the old one. As an analogy, when you watch a playand find there is a new face in the stage, you will feel curious and holdinterest to enjoy his performance. To large extent, a new actor will usuallyinject the snap to the play. A new actor is to the cast what a new leadershipis to an enterprise. Except for the curiosity, a new leadership will bring morecheeses to the enterprise in practice.
The centralconcept behind this phenomenon of the replacing of leadership is the replacingof idea which the leaders hold. Especially this principle is applied in thebusiness well. You will find the employee turnover rate in the business issignificant high than in any other fields. That stems from the dramatic changesin market. Market, usually compared to the battlefield, is filled ofcompetition. Every company in the market aims to get a bigger cake, even wantto get more profits from their rivals. Therefore, a new strategy is vital foran ambitious company. Through the new strategy, the share of the company in themarket will increase. While these new strategy usually come from the newleadership. For example, after managing by a new leadership, KFC began to selltheir food with toys, possibly which attracted the children more than the fooditself, but McDonald’s didn't. So at the moment, KFC gained a big profit fromits new ideas in sale.
Moreover alteringthe leadership in certain time such as five years has another advantage in enterprise.It is reasonable to alter a leadership concerning the corruption. Once he does,he has to responsibility for the money. That is to say he has to give a biggercake back to the one who gives him by undermining the interests of enterprise.Otherwise, the one will release the scandal to the media. Then the result istoo easy to assume. But indeed if he does so, when he has to leave, some thingcannot be clarified to the new leadership. Sooner or later, the new leaderswill find the truth. Obviously, no matter either of these happens, his life inprison is coming soon. Thus it is a useful obstacle for corruption.
Notwithstanding,since some enterprises don’t know the essence of altering our leadership in acertain time, they change their leadership in an incorrect moment. For example,a leadership of a company had made 10-year strategy 5 years ago. Now thestrategy is under their control. But it is the time to change the leadership.In spite of the strategy, the company still alters their leadership as before. Sincea new leadership maybe cannot understand the core concept of this 10-yearstrategy, they will stop it and then an unexpected loss is waiting for him inthe corner. Factually, altering his leadership now is unnecessary. Why shouldwe not alter our leadership, even though they have been there five years ormore? Actually, the answer is that altering the leadership aims to deal the newproblems their former leaders cannot solve. If they can solve, alteringleadership is unnecessary.
In a nutshell,through changing the leadership in a certain time, such as five years orlonger, the aim is to inject the new energy for the enterprise. If theleadership can alter their mind with the development of the circumstance andresolve the dilemma effectively, it is waste to change it. Whether change aleadership or not rely on their ability of solving the changing problems. |
|