issues 70 求拍，必回

after17UID: 2681985

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."
WORDS: 516
TIME: 01:15:10
DATE: 2010/2/6 10:41:17


Should any leaders in power step down after five years? The author claims so, by the reason that new leadership would make great progress. It is true that innovation in leadership should be ensured, however, the term had better to be five years is remaining uncertain.

First and foremost, it is an efficient way that leaders in power resign after several years to make the company, government and so forth to be vigorous. As we all known, innovation is a vital factor for most institutions to flourish. With new leaders joining the teams, new ideas, different prospects for viewing problems are brought to the teams. In return, the productivity will be increased. Let's suppose a plot in a company which is a traditional manufactory in China. The old leader operates the company for 20 years and consequently becomes dispassionate which will influence the spirit of employees. As a result, the productivity will be weakened. Instead, fresh blood is energetic and deal with works with passion. If the old leader resigned, and a new president took over his position, with fresh blood coming to the company, there will be a boom again. Common sense tells me that when working with passionate ones, we will affected by them and become vigorous too.

In addition, long-positioned leaders would become arrogant, and they tend to autocratic principles in their field. There are numerous examples in the politics. For instance, the first Chinese chairman Mao Zedong, a great man in his youth and develops Chinese people's living standards, turned to be bureaucratic in his later years. In 1960s, he started the ten year's revolution which affected millions of families and led those families to live in miserable lives which other politicians made great disapproval toward his decision. This example tells us that long-time leadership does really harm to our country.

Wonderful though the suggestion that people in power should resign is, there is no evidence showing how many years is a good term for leadership. While innovation is a fundamental part of benign leadership, stability also plays an essential role in leadership. If our management is not stable, employees will wonder how to continue their work. Logically, different leaders adopt different principles in the management. Imagining when employees just become suit for a policy, then the manager be changed and a new leader publishes a different policy. Consequently, the stability will be undermined. Still, no information indicates us that five years is a perfect term for leader ship.
The international Olympic committee President’s turn is eight years which indicates maybe in politics eight years is a good term while it may not suit for business. Considering different field has their own characteristics, the five years' suggestion is not fit for the whole.

Without innovation, our society cannot make great progress and suffer a risk to depress是不是改成括号里的？（increase a risk for depression）. Without stability, any organizations cannot operate in a normal way and in turn employees become desperate to the management. For my point of view, in order to prosper team it is better to combine innovation and stability together. That is to say profession in power should resign in a proper time, may be five years, or not.

headeyeUID: 2671390

回拍~

Do any leads in power should step down after five years? The author claims so, by the reason that new leadership would make great progress. It is true that innovation in leadership should be ensured, however, the frequency had better to be five years is remained uncertain.

First and foremost, it is an efficient way that leaders in power resign after several years to make the company, government and so forth to be vigorous.vigor是名词吧 As we all known, innovation is a vital factor for any institutions to flourish. With new leaders joining the teams, new ideas, different prospects for viewing problems are brought to the teams. In return, the productivity will be increased. Let's suppose a plot in a company which is a traditional manufactory in China.
The old leader president the company for 20 years and consequently he becomes dispassionate. As a result employees in the company also dispassionate and the productivity are weakening. If the old leader resigned, and a new president took over his position, with new blood coming to the company, there will be a boom again.（这里有点绝对，新领导到公司就 boom again..中间加一两句说新领导的优势更好一点） Common sense tells me that when we work with passionate ones, we will be affected by them and become vigorous too.

In addition, long-positioned leaders would become arrogant, and adapt autocratic principles in their field. There are many examples in the politics. For instance, the first Chinese president Mao Zedong, （who is）可去掉 a great man in his youth and develops Chinese people's living standards, turned to be bureaucratic in his later years. In 1960s, he 发动（started/launched?） the ten year's revolution which affected millions of families and leaded to those families live in miserable lives which other politicians made great disapproval of his decision. This example tells us that long-time leadership does really harm to our country.

Wonderful though the suggestion that people in power should resign is,（前半句有点不明白，主要是wouderful和最后的is不懂） there is no evidence showing how many years is a good term for leadership. While innovation is a fundamental part of benign leadership, stability also plays an essential key role in leadership. If our management is not stable, employees will wonder how to continue their work.
Logically, different leaders adopt different principles in the management. Imagining when employees just become suit for a policy, then the manager be changed and a new leader publishs a different policy. Consequently, the stability will be undermined. Still, no information indicates us that five years is a perfect term for leader ship.
The American president is four years, maybe in politics four years is a good term. However, this term may not suit for business. Considering different field has their own characteristics, the five years' suggestion is not fit for the whole.

Without innovation, our society cannot make great progress and suffer a risk to depress. Without stability, any organizations cannot operate in a normal way and in turn employees become desperate to the management. For my point of view, in order to prosper team it is better to combine innovation and stability together. That is to say profession in power should resign in a proper time, may be five years, or not.

两个例子分别从旧领导统治一段时间后是否换了新领导两个情况说明论点，最后又讨论任期几年合适，整个逻辑非常严密~有些拼写和语法错误，建议写好以后贴到word里面，可以检查一些出来~
Best wishes

iwvUID: 2759912

Do any leads in power should step down after five years? The author claims so, by the reason that new leadership would make great progress. It is true that innovation in leadership should be ensured, however, the frequency had better to be five years is remained uncertain.

First and foremost, it is an efficient way that leaders in power resign after several years to make the company, government and so forth to be vigorous. As we all known, innovation is a vital factor for any institutions to flourish. With new leaders joining the teams, new ideas, different prospects for viewing problems are brought to the teams. In return, the productivity will be increased. Let's suppose a plot in a company which is a traditional manufactory in China.
The old leader president (president是名词，换成operate) the company for 20 years and consequently he (he去掉) becomes dispassionate. As a result, employees in the company also dispassionate and the productivity are weakening. If the old leader resigned, and a new president took over his position, with new blood coming to the company, there will be a boom again. Common sense tells me that when we(we去掉) working with passionate ones, we will be affected by them and become vigorous too.

In addition, long-positioned leaders would become arrogant, and adapt autocratic principles in their field. There are many (改成numerous) examples in the politics. For instance, the first Chinese president Mao Zedong, a great man in his youth and develops Chinese people's living standards, turned to be bureaucratic in his later years. In 1960s, he started the ten year's revolution which affected millions of families and leaded to (加the fact that)those families live in miserable lives which other politicians made great disapproval of his decision. This example tells us that long-time leadership does really harm to our country.

Wonderful though the suggestion that people in power should resign is, there is no evidence showing how many years is a good term for leadership. While innovation is a fundamental part of benign leadership, stability also plays an essential key role in leadership. If our management is not stable, employees will wonder how to continue their work.
Logically, different leaders adopt different principles in the management. Imagining when employees just become suit for a policy, then the manager be changed and a new leader publishes a different policy. Consequently, the stability will be undermined. Still, no information indicates us that five years is a perfect term for leadership.
The American president is four years, maybe in politics four years is a good term.（前半句不对，总统是四年？后半句也不是分句，是一个完整的句子） However, this term（改成four years吧，指代更清楚一点） may not suit for business. Considering different field has their own characteristics, the five years' suggestion is not fit for the whole.

Without innovation, our society cannot make great progress and suffer a risk to depress（increase a risk for depression）. Without stability, any organizations cannot operate（应用被动式） in a normal way and in turn employees become desperate to the management. For my point of view, in order to prosper team it is better to combine innovation and（with）
stability together. That is to say profession in power should resign in a proper time, may be five years, or not.

语言有点chinglish，不够地道，和我是一样的毛病，还得多读范文
















https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1057861-1-1.html欢迎继续，谢谢

lsrUID: 2630037

看了一遍，整体的思路我觉得很清晰：
先说：换领导的好处
再说：不换领导的敝处
最后说：关于任期具体时间的讨论
我觉得语言方面有待提高，但因为本人自己的语言水平有限，就我给你具体改了。

有一点建议：因为题目中谈到的new leadership 的最终目的是success for any enterprise 所以我觉得最后论述的落脚点还应在讨论如果保证这个success上
但最后一点关于任期的讨论对这方面讨论的太少了，我觉得关于这方面问题的讨论应该放到“在不同领域中如何选择一个合适的领导任期以更好的保证有效的领导来达到这个success上”

小小的建议~呵呵

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1058579-1-1.html 1# after17