习作-3.11 issue70

cooltozeroUID: 2705603

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: 604          TIME: 00:47:07          DATE: 2010-3-11 21:36:43
=================================================================================
One of the most important questions in making a enterprise continuous prosperous is that how long a leader's tenure shoud be. Some people consider  that an enterprise is better to  be controled long time  by an effective head, while others tend to chose the way in which the leader changes frequently ,just  like the speaker says . In practice ,considering the advantages and disadvatages of both them, in my view ,a more flexible election of leaders probobly works better.






The speaker seems to have realized that a leader stays too long a time on the position may be  detrimental to the enterprise for following reasons. The first, since any individual's kowledge and experience is not infinite, a leader is not exempt from the end that one day his or her creativeness is exhausted. In this case, the firm is likely to suffer from the new problems which the leader can't solve by previous approaches. The second, without the pressue of steping down, a leader may slacken efforts. As a result, the company or the government becomes less competent. The third, a too long time term might forms totalitarianism, which damages an organization by prenventing democracy, for a leader's power would increase with time when more and more underlings obey him/her. And it is this reason why Washington, the firs president of the United States, refused to continue his presidency again. And this tradition has been kept and greatly infuluenced America's politics. So, changing the leader regularly seems function well to resove these problems.




However, the speaker unfortunatey ignore some negative impacts brought by frequent changes of leaders on enterprises. It takes much time and enegy enven much money of a enterprise  to fullfill the process of deciding  who shoud be the next leader. Just like the presidential election of America, no one is able to caculate how much they spend on it. Such kind of expenditure is not affordable by each government or each company  or any individual. In additon,  a period of time, which sometimes can be crucial to a enterprise, is needed for a new head to adjust to the new positon. SARS, known as an serious epidemic disease of 2003 in China, stayed not fully emphasied because of election of new govenment leaders the year before. But a disastrous concsequence erupted before the new leaders adjust themlesves well. Especially for some business company, to prevent some critical opportunities from escaping, such kind of waste of time seems harmful. Finally, too many changes of leaders will lead to confusion in workers who have to adapt to another leader alongside with new policies again and again.  Anaysis above indicate that changes of leaers may also result in inefficiency.



As I see, a case by case choice may be more apt to the leadership. Take the politics as an example, usually, a regular election of new office leader works effectively. But if necessary, previous leaders are premitted to stay more terms, just as the situation of Roosevelt in the Second World War. When it comes to the business firms, most often, a stable leadership is more beneficial, for both keeping the firm's sensitivity in seizing chances and leader's consistent policy. No matter what kind of way by which a new leader is decided, most important thing we should care is that any leader must be supervised by some others so that the leader will diligently serve for the firm rather than behave unscrupulously.


In final analysis, Neither a long term of one leader nor frequent changes of new leaders will omnipotent. A more advisable way is to found some fixed rules based on flexible case by case analysis.

qisaimanUID: 2703629

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: 604
TIME: 00:47:07
DATE: 2010-3-11 21:36:43
=================================================================================
看到Word飘红一片，lz自检单词吧。我就不改了。

One of the most important questions in making a->an enterprise continuous prosperous is that how long a leader's tenure shoud be. Some people consider
that an enterprise is better to
be controled long time
by an effective head, while others tend to chose the way in which the leader changes frequently ,just
like the speaker says . In practice ,considering the advantages and disadvatages of both them, in my view ,a more flexible election of leaders probobly works better.
Do you mean the method of election?

The speaker seems to have realized that a leader stays too long a time on the position may be
detrimental to the enterprise for following reasons. The first, since any individual's kowledge and experience is not infinite, a leader is not exempt from the end that one day his or her creativeness is exhausted. In this case, the firm is likely to suffer from the new problems which the leader can't solve by previous approaches. The second, without the pressue of steping down, a leader may slacken efforts. As a result, the company or the government becomes less competent. The third, a too long time term might forms totalitarianism, which damages an organization by prenventing democracy, for a leader's power would increase with time when more and more underlings obey him/her. And it is this reason why Washington, the firs president of the United States, refused to continue his presidency again. And this tradition has been kept and greatly infuluenced America's politics. So, changing the leader regularly seems function well to resove these problems.

开头不用总说Speaker如何如何。

However, the speaker unfortunatey ignore some negative impacts brought by frequent changes of leaders on enterprises. It takes much time and enegy enven much money of a enterprise
to fullfill the process of deciding
who shoud be the next leader. Just like the presidential election of America, no one is able to caculate how much they spend on it.{maybe the rater will not share the same opinion, though it is said the American is poor at mathematics} Such kind of expenditure is not affordable by each government or each company
or any individual. In additon,
a period of time, which sometimes can be crucial to a enterprise, is needed for a new head to adjust to the new positon. SARS, known as an serious epidemic disease of 2003 in China, stayed not fully emphasied because of election of new govenment leaders the year before. But a disastrous concsequence erupted before the new leaders adjust themlesves well{do you really think so? }. Especially for some business company, to prevent some critical opportunities from escaping, such kind of waste of time seems harmful. Finally, too many changes of leaders will lead to confusion in workers who have to adapt to another leader alongside with new policies again and again.
Anaysis above indicate that changes of leaers may also result in inefficiency.

交替出现各个领域的例子，使得读者很难把握脉络。 还是集中一点说透吧；

As I see, a case by case choice may be more apt to the leadership. Take the politics as an example, usually, a regular election of new office leader works effectively. But if necessary, previous leaders are premitted to stay more terms, just as the situation of Roosevelt in the Second World War. When it comes to the business firms, most often, a stable leadership is more beneficial, for both keeping the firm's sensitivity in seizing chances and leader's consistent policy. No matter what kind of way by which a new leader is decided, most important thing we should care is that any leader must be supervised by some others so that the leader will diligently serve for the firm rather than behave unscrupulously.缺乏论述；

不要总找特殊情况； 使用例子和推理而不是简单的论断；

In final analysis, Neither a long term of one leader nor frequent changes of new leaders will omnipotent. A more advisable way is to found some fixed rules based on flexible case by case analysis.

结尾太简单了，应该多看看范文吧。 其实我也是 呵呵。

revitalization through new leadership.是关键 不过本文似乎没涉及到；
而且关于选取的方式也没什么论述啊。