【Big Fish】03月11日Issue070-By rokre2tt

rokre2ttUID: 2714355

In this issue, the speaker asserts that replacing the leaders is a best way to keep a team's vitality, and a proper cycle is five years. To my opinion, time just likes a grindstone, which will exhaust one's ambition slowly. Staying at a position too long may be harmful to the team. So an institutional replacement of leaderships can be a solution to this problem, which will keep the careers from being at a standstill.

To begin with, time is an important factor which influences one's mentality, especially to the leaderships who dominates the whole. It's a common sense that if people only do one job in a long period, they may generate a feeling of inertia. In their eyes, job has become a program to fulfill the task. They begin going into a situation where time seems stop, every new thing surrounding them can't stimulate them. As a leadership, an important figure is to overcome the inertia and keep vitality in every stage. Only this he/she can lead members to success.

Admittedly, it's undoubtedly that somebody has been as leaderships for a long time, and they lead their members to attain marked achievements. For example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been as the American president for twelve years. He is one of the greatest presidents in American history, for he devoted his life to the America, even the whole world. Provided he could live more years, maybe he would do more for Americans.

However, such persons in are only particulars in history, and more people will generate some flaws during their term of office. Everyone in the world is not wonderful, and no one can guarantee he/she makes right choices each time. Perhaps a man staying at his position longer, he will face to more temptations. Especially the one who has many authorities, could he ensure avoid abusing his authorities? If not, the long term of office will be an unfairly institution. There are so many examples in our lives. Such as Saddam Hussein, has been as the president of Iraq for over twenty years. Because of his long term autocratic domination, no one can circumscribe him effectively, which made Iraq a hell of a life. Undoubtedly, the long term of office has a lot of disadvantages in fact.

In addition, just like the metabolism in nature can help the organism to keep activity, the regularly replacement of leaderships is a good mechanism to ensure the team's vitalization. To the long term development of an organization, the joining of new leaders will add new ideas, new management technologies, and forming a new positive atmosphere. As to the cycle of the replacement, five years may be a proper choice which is not too long or too short. Because leaders can devote their energy into work during the five years, and they won't feel inertia or exhausted. Considering such a situation, the replacement of leaders can be carried out without many obstructs, there will not be a serial weakness in our social framework.

To sum up, too long term of office is not good for integration. In case of the potential loss going with such an institution, maybe the replacement of office is an effective solution. Through the regularly replacement, the team can keep its activity for a long time, and this is a key for the leader guiding the members to achieve success of careers.