单独题目：70

雨&彩虹UID: 132532

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."

这篇是关于领导类的.也就是是不是每一段时期的替换能带来新鲜血液,促进企业和政治的变革.

第一, 的确,案领导者长期执政, 会带来体制的僵硬, 个人的盲目自信, 权利的滥用. 可以从心理学和政治科学的角度来说.

第二可以分领域阐述一下, 在经济领域来说,企业领导长期执政会使企业无法跟上社会发展的快速脚步, 而且人事制度的僵硬也会降低职工的士气.在政治领域, 民主社会的一大优势就是公务员更好的为人民服务, 而长期执政于君主制度相似,. 其结果必然造成权利滥用和危机感的缺乏, 对人们的要求置若罔闻. 损害人们的利益

第三, 反过来所,频繁的人事变动会引起企业和社会的动乱, 不安,.因为每一次的变动都意味这新一轮的变革过程. 人们是需要时间去适应的,所以不应频繁.,另一个角度是, 有一些成功的领导人, 他们的成就突出, 那么我们应该支持他们留任时间常于其他人, 以作为对他们成就的肯定, 同时也是更多的受益其中.

例子上大家自己补充.

雨&彩虹UID: 132532

Leadership, as we define it, is of vital importance to the survival and prosperity of almost any profession, which were particularly true in the realm of business, politics and education. Periodic leadership, by which I mean that those in power step down after a period of time, will add vitality and fresh blood to the system that will otherwise degenerate to stagnancy and rigidity. At the same time, we should avoid cursory decision since the changes of leadership usually result in new round of adjustment and renovation.   

Admittedly, it is beneficial to establish competitive mechanism to set the whole system run properly and energetically. In the field of business where the product innovation and staff morale is leading to sustainable development, leaders, regarded as the soul of enterprises, should be well alert to the danger of arrogance and rigidity. Human nature reveals to us that no matter how capable and aggressive a hard-rider leader may seem to be, after long time of staying in the same place, handing the same stuff, the work that they once exhorted as revolutionary will be reduced to routine and boredom. Another draw to this life-long leadership is that this will freeze morale since nobody sees the possibility of promotion which is make possible through job fluidity and rearrangement of staff. The third problem involved is that facing a business world full of dramatic change, leaders that hold the office too long is deprived of creative thinking and as a result, instill fresh blood to the enterprise with innovative blueprints might appear to be a paramount power. Examples are abundant to illustrate this phenomenon. We always observe on newspapers that after staying in a office for a few years, a leader stepped down to be replaced by a new one whom were  accolade by commentaries to bring a new round of reformation and revitalization.

This is also true in the political realm where life-long domination will result in power abuses, which will damage our dogma of democratic society. Psychological tells us that if leaders feel their post is not steady, they tend to be cautious of their own doing and are likely to rationally utilize their power for the fear of being overthrew from their shine, losing self dignity as well as personal achievement. In the US, this is well uttered in the presidential office term changed every five years. Comparing with the aristocratic and monarchic society, people get better access to public affairs, human rights and justice. Nixon’s Watergate scandal convince us that no government executive were endowed the right of power abuses and anyone neglecting the public scrutiny and democratic essence will be replaced by leaders with a better understanding of it.   

However, such a generalization lacks sufficient justification under certain circumstances. For one thing that frequently changed leadership will distract the enterprise and political system and cause instability and thus decision of the proper duration of office years worth the effort of careful analyzing. Another point is that for those successful entrepreneurs and politicians wining public respect and abstain great achievement, we should allow them stay longer in order to benefit more from their contribution. (在这里可以加入成果企业连任的企业家,和民主国家连任的总统的例子).
In the final analysis, although I agree fundamentally with the speakers’ claim that serving a office too long will engender stagnancy and rigidity or even arrogance of leaders, in business arena as well political realm alike. On the other hand, I found that in some cases this claim is problematic since some leaders do demonstrate great leading strategy, respectful self-dignity and courageous innovative will. And I see nothing wrong for these leaders to stay in power comparatively longer period.

lovemouseUID: 136682

谢谢

screwUID: 135321

我的想法是，过短的office years可能还会造成另一种问题，因为并非所有的在位者计画都可以在短期内显出成效的，例如日本的经济问题，恐怕是再高明的执政者也无法短期内解决问题，这个问题是需要长期的经济体制改革。因此如果任期过于短暂，且继任者又不支持或持续执行某些需长期执行方有成效的计画，这样而言，对于群众（或被领导者）将会是一种损失。
解决的方案是，每位继任者除了注入了新血、新的生命力外，都应审慎考虑前任者所拟定的计画或政策，若是长期执行后对群众有益的，则应持续下去，反之，则另拟政策。这样才可保留前任者所留下的好的东西，并不断改进缺点，总体长远的利益才会上升。

另外 to 雨&彩虹 你的英文真的很漂亮，佩服中...:P

雨&彩虹UID: 132532

SCREW, 你说的又是另一个点了:)我在文章中没有提到.谢谢.

谢谢你的夸奖,但是我现在回头看看我的文章中其实还有很多错误,但是因为我是要在最短时间内

把它弄完, 所以也没时间仔细修改了. 还是看思路吧:)

天地无用UID: 112318

我也来提提看法,
题目的意思应该是:
在任何领域，商业、政治、教育、政府，掌权者都应该在5年任期后下台。对任何
事业而言，取得成功最保险的途径就是聘用新生力量担当领导。

我觉得可下笔的角度还有频繁的人事变动有可能使领导者醉心于政治,或者说勾心斗角.而作为领导者的最主要责任显然是为社会造福, 如果因为竞争岗位牵扯过多的精力容易使领导岗位失去它的力量和意义.