issue 70 还有6天吧~尽量回拍~没有回拍者考完一定帮忙~

费话先生UID: 2788924

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: 682
TIME: 00:45:00

DATE: 2010-8-9 12:23:37


I agree that in some areas, especially in politics and business, it is quite necessary to change leaders frequently. Since the change of leaders will bring out new approaches, new ways of thinking and also can prevent leaders from abusing power. However, that does not mean, the surest path to success for all enterprises should be changing leaders since stabilization is more important in some areas like legislature and public officials. In addition, it seems too extreme to regulate that leaders should step down after five years. The tenure should depends on case by case analyze.

To begin with, there is no denying that new leadership will introduce new ways of thinking, which is conducive to find the flaws in the established management system. Take the airborne CEO Horgan for an instance, his characteristics are diligent, low profile and focusing on team player. In the aftermath of blind expansions conducted by the former CEO, ABB Company is under high risk of bankrupt. If the former CEO were allowed to continue taking in charge of the whole company, his Chrisma （a style of leadership which focus on personal power）characteristics would continually lead the company to a catastrophe. Even though the former CEO had realized his deficiency, it would be usually difficult to remove the constraints of his established pattern of management and accept a new pattern of management. So in that matter, the surest path is to change another leader to completely reform the whole culture of the enterprise and redesign the management system. After Hogan step on in the office, ABB has experienced a skyrocket of market share due to the reform and team spirit he brings about. From this example, we can see that new leadership is an effective way to revitalize the enterprise and correct the wrongs or flaws in the operation.

Likewise, new leadership can prevent leaders from abusing power in politics area. Based on the theory of rational person, political leaders will also possibly abuse power to benefit themselves. One of the prevention measures is to change leaders when they are not eligible to provide high quality service to the public. In this circumstance, they will have a strong desire to performance well in order to keep governing. Without the replacement of leadership, a government easily bogged down under the dominance of authoritarian which threatens the rights of the people and usually brings out upheaval by virtue of history experience.


However, changing leadership is not always the surest path to success since stabilization is highly valued in some organizations. For example, the tenure of the chief judge of Supreme Court in America is life-long, which prevent the intervention of the president. The life long tenure guarantees the judge strong power to supervise the delinquencies in administration and politics. Without the ensuring of life long power, the judge may cater to the preferences of ruling class rather than maintain judicial independence. Another example is public servants in America. The servants do not need to align with the political candidates and hence break spoils system system by which important public positions are given to supporters of the political party that wins power. In addition, the long-term tenure also prevents the periodic unrest caused by frequent election.

Finally, the regulation that every leader should step down after five years should be analyzed case by case. Take the election of president for an example, in America president is elected every four year, while in Britain the minister can be changed every year as long as the majority of Parliament opposes the minister. Different culture background and the performance of leaders should be considered to determine when the leaders should step down. For example, if a president of America successfully gains the credit of the people, he will be allowed to continue another four-year tenure. If he has a rather bad performance, the Congress has the right to compel him to resign even he has not finish his tenure. In short, whether the leaders should step down after five years depends on his performance and the necessity of the organization.

In conclusion, new leadership is quite a good idea to revitalize the whole organization since it can introduce new methods, new ideas which inspire the creativity. Also new leaders can correct the wrongs in time before it evolves to a complex and durable problem. But we must realize at the same time, in some organizations such as legislature, stabilization is also important.