- 最后登录
- 2022-11-29
- 在线时间
- 371 小时
- 寄托币
- 966
- 声望
- 16
- 注册时间
- 2010-10-5
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 211
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 649
- UID
- 2921401
- 声望
- 16
- 寄托币
- 966
- 注册时间
- 2010-10-5
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 211
|
本帖最后由 江兔子 于 2012-8-17 21:57 编辑
Issue 8. In any field--business, politics, education, government-- those in power should step down after five years.
Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.
Clues: partly agree. 1. New leaderships for revitalization would be a good way, eg. Mozart. Newton, young--great scientist, old--trap younger scientist. energy, creativity, passion, courage.
2. Experienced leaderships are not bad, eg. Steven Jobs, Bill Gates, experience, prudent, more information.
3. More enterprise would be better operated under the experienced or they would change plans from time to time.
I would be partly agree with the statement that sometimes a new leadership would be probably a good way to thrive enterprises, especially those enterprises required creativity and passion. But does that means leaders should be changed from time to time in all fields? My answer would be no, and my explanation would be followed.
To start with, new leaderships could bring their unique power, part of it would be essential for an enterprise merely lacking energy. With a new power taking control over a field or a company, chances for promoting would be created more than usual, and that would inspire people. Furthermore, a new leader would often bring newly bright ideas to solve problems for instance. Besides, since they are new to be leaders, they personally contain qualities such as creativity and passion, and they even might dare to risk. They might fight against contravention and magically vitalize one enterprise. One good example goes to Mozart, who surprised the European classical music world at age of nigh with his talent as passion and courage. Another brilliant example would be Newton, a leader of the physic, he who once was young and dare to challenge the contravention. Then he created the Gravity Theory, promoted physic’s development. But many years after that, Newton devoted to Church and created nothing.
However, experienced leaders are not that bad. Since they have been leaders for a long time, they would certainly gain something. A variety of information and connection net all over a certain field would be great advantages. And they always more prudent than new leaders, experienced leaders also had been trained to have piecing perspectives of enterprises. Steven Jobs would be served as a good explanation of how experienced leader thrive a company again. Jobs had been fired from Apple Company once, but he came back soon after he operated a powerful competition company against Apple Company. It's always he who saved Apple Company and created magic wonders. One another story would be told by Bill Gates. It would only be him, a leader who has been experiencing things from every starter, but never anybody else could run the Microsoft through decades.
Moreover, new powers would work in some fields, but other fields would be quite different, and more often than not, frequently changing powers would be disasters. As I said, with new power developing, leaders would promote people who support them, but exclude those against them. Even more, fresh leaders would abandon those plans carried out by last powers for setting their new plans, thus some good plans would be ruined. Frequently changing stuffs and plans, like every five years, would sometimes cause a great loss even bloody one. China has been a very massive period around ten thousand BC. In that period, new power raised all the time, politics could not remain stable, and none of the government plan could be completed. Therefore, people lived in miserable lives and few of them could survive.
To sum up, new leaderships probably would revitalize enterprises, but in general, experienced leaderships would do better job.
|
|