issue70 社会问题7.14 这两天的纠结之作

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

70"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."

我的思路是 在一些领域，如商业、政治，领导更换很重要；但有些领域，如教育、体育、公益组织并不需要经常更换领导。
（1） 讨论为什么有些领域领导更换很重要，因为这些领域需要民主、需要不断纠正错误。长期领导会滥用职权，形成独裁；这些领域发展迅速，需要经常的人员更迭去调整政策。如总统选举，要实行新政。
（2） 讨论为什么有的领域需要长期领导。因为这些组织的发展和领导的名望有很大的关系。比如名人成立的慈善组织。这些领域需要长期贯彻同样的思想，如教育、体育等

Word 654
It is universally true that in some professions, leaders should not be in power for more than five years for the reason that these positions require revitalization in order to ensure continuous and sustainable development. While, in other areas, leaders are in need to be in power for a long period of time since their experience and fame are the crucial elements leading to achievement.

I concede that the leader of an organization to some extent plays the key role in the path to its success, while the essential reason for the issue roots in the feature of the profession. As for the business and politics, in which competition is exceptionally fierce, the leaders must stay energetic

sensible, and well-prepared for any incidents coming along at any moment. Besides, the huge responsibilities he has to burden for his clients or people are much more than the reputations he appreciates. Owing to the high requirement and paramount pressure stated above, it seems impossible for a person to stay in power for too long as his failure to keep making wise decisions in addition to his health condition that may have problems because of the excessive pressure. We may cite a famous example of the ex-president Franklin Roosevelt, who led the US go through the economic crisis and World War II, died of the collapse of his health during the start of his forth term. Great as he was, the worse off health conditions caused by tremendous pressure from work could not keep him working efficiently.

Despite the strict requirement and great pressure of the leadership, there exist other factors that limit the length of leader’s term. From history in which people had been living under dictatorship for thousands of years, they suffered from the unreasonable and unjust policies constituted by rulers. Examples in politics from history demonstrate that long-term leadership results in abuse of power. On one hand, the leaders would take advantage of the power to seek profits for themselves, such us constituting policies only beneficial to his supporters, while damage the benefits of a large proportion of people. On the other hand, the rulers would insist on their own views and take into no consideration opinions of other groups or parties. Even when they have made big mistakes, they would be unwilling to admit and correct their faults, therefore, leading to the less competitive of the nation. In this case, limitation to the leadership term and election are in desperate need in order to add revitalization to the organization.

However, in realms as education and charities where the competition is less, it is the fame and experience of the leader that play vital roles. For instance, the head of a high education organization is required not only the ability of strong leadership, but also qualifications, experience and most important, academic positions in specific area. Only with these qualities can he gain trust from other professors and students. Besides, in the fields of education, it is not the leader but the students who bring about revitalization. The frequent replacement of leaders could only lead to instability of the school and failure to assure academic environments. As for an charities, the fame of the leader is even more crucial. Most charities are found under the names of celebrities such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Since their names own credibility, it is certainly much easier to raise money than the less famous ones. However, once the leader changed, the foundation will have much difficulty being supported.

In conclusion, the assertion is somehow too presumptuous to generalize all conditions before exploring the requirement of each profession. According to the analysis above, not any enterprise need to achieve success by changing leaders every certain years. It merely works for some certain areas such as politics and business who needs constant revitalization to remain competitive, but not suitable for other professions who require experienced and prestigious leaders.

figuechenUID: 2850619

占位，明天改~

gtjohnUID: 2813321

It is universally true that in some professions, leaders should not be in power for more than five years[不用跟着题目写5年吧，这个也是可以讨论的点…] for the reason that these positions require revitalization in order to ensure continuous and sustainable development. While, in other areas, leaders are in need to be in power [这句绕, leaders need to be in power行不行]for a long period of time since their experience and fame are the crucial elements leading to achievement.
[这篇果然只能分领域了么…]

I concede that the leader of an organization to some extent plays the key role in the path to its success, while the essential reason for the issue roots in the feature of the profession. As for the business and politics, in which competition is exceptionally fierce, the leaders must stay energetic, sensible, and well-prepared for any incidents coming along at any moment. Besides, the huge responsibilities he has to burden for his clients or people are much more than the reputations he appreciates. Owing to the high requirement and paramount [这个词可以用来修饰pressure?]pressure stated above, it seems impossible for a person to stay in power for too long as his failure to keep making wise decisions in addition to his health condition that may have problems because of the excessive pressure.[我那篇文章在这个点上很纠结，要是别人脑袋清爽身体好，凭啥不让做啊？]We may cite a famous example of the ex-president Franklin Roosevelt, who led the US go through the economic crisis and World War II, died of the collapse of his health during the start of his forth term. Great as he was, the worse off health conditions caused by tremendous pressure from work could not keep him working efficiently.
[举了身体健康的例子，大家都写罗斯福会不会判雷同呢…商业也算在里面了，感觉商业当领导当很久的还是例子挺多的吧]

Despite the strict requirement and great pressure of the leadership, there exist other factors that limit the length of leader’s term. From history in which people had been living under dictatorship for thousands of years, they suffered from the unreasonable and unjust policies constituted by rulers. Examples[examples在哪里？] in politics from history demonstrate that long-term leadership results in abuse of power. On one hand, the leaders would take advantage of the power to seek profits for themselves, such us constituting policies only beneficial to his supporters, while damage the benefits of a large proportion of people. On the other hand, the rulers would insist on their own views and take into no consideration opinions of other groups or parties. Even when they have made big mistakes, they would be unwilling to admit and correct their faults, therefore, leading to the less competitive of the nation. In this case, limitation to the leadership term and election are in desperate need in order to add revitalization to the organization.
[不是太赞同这个例子，这个题目出主要是针对民主国家的吧，过去大独裁的例子拿出来讲有的偏了，因为这个坏处是显然易见的嘛。我一直没弄清楚的问题是，现代制度下，如果有严格的监管和定期的选举制度，为什么一个优秀的领导不能连任？比如普京，大家都支持他修改法律获取连任，说明可行，虽然他没有这么做。但是他有可能再一次竞选总统。那么这个不允许连任的制度是出于什么更深层次的考虑么？大家一起想哈]

However, in realms as education and charities where the competition is less, it is the fame and experience of the leader that play vital roles.[我觉得leader不管哪个领域fame和experience都起到很大作用的。关于教育这个我也同意德高望重的人来做领导，但是看看国内一些大学历任校长的任期，平均任期比5年少呢。我高中的校长平均2, 3年换一个，跟跑马灯似的。为什么呢？] For instance, the head of a high education organization is required not only the ability of strong leadership, but also qualifications, experience and most important, academic positions in specific area. Only with these qualities can he gain trust from other professors and students. Besides, in the fields of education, it is not the leader but the students who bring about revitalization.[不同意…教育改革不都是那么so-called leader折腾的] The frequent replacement of leaders could only lead to instability of the school and failure to assure academic environments. As for an[去掉] charities, the fame of the leader is even more crucial. Most charities are found under the names of celebrities such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Since their names own credibility, it is certainly much easier to raise money than the less famous ones. However, once the leader changed, the foundation will have much difficulty being supported.[慈善的例子倒是很好，什么一基金啊也是这个情况。但是如果人们因为leader换了就不捐款了，那可不是什么好事啊。而且很多这种是因为某个理念使大家聚到一起做事，我觉得对Leader太依赖不是好事。]

In conclusion, the assertion is somehow too presumptuous[不认得] to generalize all conditions before exploring the requirement of each profession. According to the analysis above, not any enterprise need to achieve success by changing leaders every certain years. It merely works for some certain areas such as politics and business who needs constant revitalization to remain competitive, but not suitable for other professions who require experienced and prestigious leaders.

[body 1,2讲的是一个方面的内容的话，我觉得把2放到前面讲比较好，毕竟身体健康什么的不如权利滥用那么重要。分领域的界定我不是太确定，是按竞争来分还是按权利大小或者对社会的影响来分更好呢？]

[突然想到一点，这个题是讲换领导来增加活力的。不知道在这个点上怎么展开。]

gtjohnUID: 2813321

果然一给别人改，就能歪想出不少思路。。。

figuechenUID: 2850619

先说一下我的思路吧，和你的大致一样，都是需要分情况讨论，有些需要，有些不需要。但我分了三段：政治、商业和科技。
第一段写政治，政治需要更换领导。
第二段写商业，商业不一定需要更换领导。
第三段写科技，科技一定不需要更换领导。

再来点评一下你的作文：
总的思路很清晰，分成两段讨论。但是第二段的逻辑有点混乱。究竟是什么需要让政治经常更换领导？作者一会儿认为是过重的负担让领导无法继续做出明智的决定，一会儿又说是健康问题。建议把两者的层次划得更明确一点。另外这两个原因感觉都有点牵强。比如第一个原因，过重的负担，缺乏例证；第二个健康问题，那如果领导健康很好，就可以独裁了吗？可以保留讨论

第二部分写教育、体育等，特别是提到了慈善，让我开了眼界。我写的时候就没有想到。

另外有个疑问，关于商界，有许多企业都是家族企业，都是在家族内部传承，近乎终身制，但有部分企业的经营状况也相当良好。所以我认为商界未必需要经常换领导。

大致就说这么多吧~今天写了一篇同题作文，欢迎互改~
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1118991&page=6#pid1774170085    52楼

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

果然一给别人改，就能歪想出不少思路。。。
gtjohn 发表于 2010-7-15 21:57

的确，感觉跟自己写了一篇似的~尤其是大家都写一样的，可以好好修改了~
罗斯福的例子我是借鉴你的，不知道还有木有别人用~我想不出别的例子了~

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

但是第二段的逻辑有点混乱。究竟是什么需要让政治经常更换领导？作者一会儿认为是过重的负担让领导无法继续做出明智的决定，一会儿又说是健康问题。建议把两者的层次划得更明确一点。另外这两个原因感觉都有点牵强。比如第一个原因，过重的负担，缺乏例证；第二个健康问题，那如果领导健康很好，就可以独裁了吗？可以保留讨论figuechen 发表于 2010-7-16 21:35

嗯，说的对，但是我这一段说的压力和健康不是主要原因，都是客观原因，关键还是下一段中滥用职权

关于商业，我也不知道怎么回事~家族企业是不是就香港那里啊？是不是他们只掌握股票，其实的领导是ceo?我见很多人都这么说的

figuechenUID: 2850619

嗯，说的对，但是我这一段说的压力和健康不是主要原因，都是客观原因，关键还是下一段中滥用职权

关于商业，我也不知道怎么回事~家族企业是不是就香港那里啊？是不是他们只掌握股票，其实的领导是ceo?我见很 ...
追梦小木耳 发表于 2010-7-16 23:01

仔细地想了一下，你说的确实有道理。分成竞争激烈和不激烈的可以道出更换领导的缘由，我的那篇文章也缺少了对这个问题的深入探讨。

另外罗斯福的例子我是想说，在罗斯福上台以后，推出了罗斯福新政，挽救了美国的经济。我不是想说他连任的事啦

figuechenUID: 2850619

今天狠狠改了昨天的那篇Issue70，求拍，大概看看思路吧~

Word:676

    Whether the leader should leave his leading position after five years in power? I think that depends on the field he is working on. For some fields such as politics, the answer is yes; for some other fields like business and charities, the answer depends on the case-to-case situation.
    Let us move on to the government and politics first. Government officials and party leaders should step down after they have taken charge of the power for five years, for two main reasons.
    First of all, it is universally acknowledged that the long term leadership will easily bring about corruption and power abusing, and the refreshment can effectively avoid them. It is human character to be careful and methodical in concerning all kinds of matter when he has just stepped on the position, and as time going, a sense of familiarity will guide him to the paths towards abusing power. For example, Stalin, once the chairman of Soviet Union, unfairly regarded loyal adherents as betrayers and prosecuted thousands of generals and officials to death with weak evidences. Nobody dared to doubt the incidence since Stalin had been in power for decades. We can see from this example that a leader might abuse his power after a long period in term.
    Secondly, the new policy that shifts of the leadership always result in, will probably bring about an effective result. Usually the former leader might not have realized the weak points in his policy or not have had the ability to solve those problems, and a new leader will sense those problems and take measures to solve them. For example, after President Roosevelt was elected president, he carried out his New Deal and reversed the falling American economy from Great Depression. Similar instances occurred in China, after Deng was elected the Chairman, his Open-up Policy led to the thirty years’ rise of Chinese economy. These two examples illustrate the new policies which new leaders carry out are extremely effective.
    On the other hand however, in the fields such as business, sports and charities, there is no need to change the leader every five years.
    The first and the most important reason is that enterprises in these fields depend a lot on the prestige and fame of the leader. Take charities for example, people donate money to a certain charity because they trust it. Foundation established and titled by Bill Gates and his wife has been in a good condition and has recently received funds from several millionaires. If the foundation is no longer led and titled by Bill Gates, the amount of money they receive will no doubt decline. From the example we can conclude that the prestige plays an important role in the enterprises in these fields and therefore the leader had better not be changed so frequently.
    The other reason is that enterprises in these fields require a relatively long term plan. Their strategy might not work in the short term. For instance, W.Buffett has been in charge of Berkshire Hathaway since the 1970s, and he had achieved great success in stock investing. He is famous for his long term investing which might last a decade. The term of five years is definitely not sufficient for him to earn quite a big money. Another example is David Stern and his NBA. He has been the leader of the league since it was inaugurated in 1946. His policy, aiming at the positive image of the stars might not seem so vital but is needed decade later and achieved great victory nowadays. It is not hard to understand why the term of five years is too short for these talented leaders.
    In sum, we can conclude from the reasoning and examples above that the revitalization through new leadership is not always the surest way towards success for any enterprise in any field. It might be correct in some fields, such as politics; and the change of leadership might not be the most influential factor in fields like business and charities. It depends on the various cases and situations.

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

9# figuechen

思路和结构都蛮好的，但是我觉得你老举社会主义国家的例子不太好
其实说白了都是独裁~那么金正日的例子不是更合适么~
还是多说点美国的例子比较好，毕竟人家的领导是选举出来的

商业说的一条原因不错，有长远计划，可以再深入的解释一下为什么同一个领导能更好的贯彻计划

发现一个你写文的特点：不爱说理，爱举例子~

学到不少例子~

figuechenUID: 2850619

9# figuechen  

思路和结构都蛮好的，但是我觉得你老举社会主义国家的例子不太好
其实说白了都是独裁~那么金正日的例子不是更合适么~
还是多说点美国的例子比较好，毕竟人家的领导是选举出来的

商业说的一条 ...
追梦小木耳 发表于 2010-7-18 11:24

但是美国的领导不都是八年下台了么，完全没有形成独裁，就不能说明长期领导所带来的害处了。朝鲜的例子不好因为他没有犯很明显的错误，斯大林发动了“大清洗”，毛发动了“文革”。其实我本来想用商业上的“独裁”的害处的例子，但实在找不到了。。。

我以后会加强说理的环节的吧，总感觉我的例子和说理配合的不是太好。例子有了，理没说清。算是一个进步方向吧~