Issue70 【Persistenc 小组】第十三次作业 有话说时如何精简而控制时间是个问题

欣馨之火UID: 2183210

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."


Nowadays, it seems that any profession needs a powerful leader, who is creative and charismatic enough to bring great achievements to the profession. At the same time, the disputable questions come: should a leader always be in his/her power, and how long a leader should be in his/her power. Some agree that a leader should step down after five years to ensure the revitalization of an enterprise, while some others argue that it is unnecessary for an enterprise to refresh its leadership to attain the same purpose. For my point of view, certain restrictions should be adopted on the tenure of leadership for the reasons of democracy and revitalization, and in some special situation, there should be some alterations for the "five-year" creed.

To begin with, no restriction on the tenure of leadership undermines the democracy and takes the high risk of corruption. If a leader do not worry about losing his/her power, then he/she can easily abuse the power and bring autocracy to the profession. Any decision, which was only made by the leaders' prejudice and selfishness, will undoubtedly do harm to any enterprise. In this situation, the leaders can make more illicit benefits for themselves by misusing their power, and then, corruption will happen.

Secondly, being in his/her power too long, a leader probably cannot bring new thoughts to the enterprise, and therefore he/she will prevent the initiatives and developments of that enterprise. As we all know, the knowledge, the ability of learning and thinking and the energy of an individual are limited. It is very hard for a leader to keep inexhaustibility all time, and when he/she is too familiar with his/her job in a profession to bring new thoughts to the enterprise, the better way for that enterprise is to get its leadership refreshed.

However, in certain realms and situations, five-year restriction on the term of leadership should not be an unchangeable creed. For example, when it comes to business, there is no necessity for a company to change its leader who can always benefit to his/her employees and make more profits for the company. Even in arena of politics, at some specific situation, the limitation can be changed. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the thirty-two president of the United States, is the only one who has got his four terms during the history of America for his great achievements such as dealing with the economic crisis.

Furthermore, for lack of necessary skill and experience to deal with the special problems of the enterprise, new leaders need more time to adapt the environment. There are quite different problems in different profession. For instance, the highest priority of business is given to profits, while the purpose of education is not earning more money but releasing the thoughts of the people. A new leader who is unfamiliar to the common creeds and problems of the profession obviously needs more time to learn and practice, and thus will be not better than his/her predecessor in foreseen future.

In the final analysis, it is essential to limit the term of leadership, except some specific consideration. In order to strengthen the democracy and prevent corruption, and in order to ensure the actively initiatives, leaders should step down after certain time, and at the same time, this should not be an invariable creed according to special situation.

Andy85UID: 2250503

Nowadays, it seems that any profession needs a powerful leader, who is creative and charismatic enough to bring great achievements to the profession. At the same time, the disputable questions come: should a leader always be in his/her power, and how long a leader should be in his/her power. Some agree that a leader should step down after five years to ensure the revitalization of an enterprise, while some others argue that it is unnecessary for an enterprise to refresh its leadership to attain the same purpose. For my point of view, certain restrictions should be adopted on the tenure of leadership for the reasons of democracy and revitalization, and in some special situation, there should be some alterations for the "five-year" creed.

To begin with, no restriction on the tenure of leadership undermines the democracy and takes the high risk of corruption. If a leader do not worry about losing his/her power, then he/she can easily abuse the power and bring autocracy to the profession. Any decision, which was only made by the leaders' prejudice and selfishness, will undoubtedly do harm to any enterprise. In this situation, the leaders can make more illicit benefits for themselves by misusing their power, and then, corruption will happen.

Secondly, being in his/her power too long, a leader probably cannot bring new thoughts to the enterprise, and therefore he/she will prevent the initiatives and developments of that enterprise. As we all know, the knowledge, the ability of learning and thinking and the energy of an individual are limited. It is very hard for a leader to keep inexhaustibility all the time, and when he/she is too familiar with his/her job in a profession to bring new thoughts to the enterprise, the better way for that enterprise is to get its leadership refreshed.

However, in certain realms and situations, five-year restriction on the term of leadership should not be an unchangeable creed. For example, when it comes to business, there is no necessity for a company to change its leader who can always benefit to his/her employees and make more profits for the company. Even in arena of politics, at some specific situation, the limitation can be changed. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the thirty-two president of the United States [是指第三十二届？ 序数词的表示], is the only one who has got his four[第四届？] terms during the history of America for his great achievements such as dealing with the economic crisis.

Furthermore, for lack of necessary skill and experience to deal with the special problems of the enterprise, new leaders need more time to adapt to the environment. There are quite different problems in different profession. For instance, the highest priority of business is given to profits, while the purpose of education is not earning more money but releasing the thoughts of the people. A new leader who is unfamiliar to the common creeds and problems of the profession obviously needs more time to learn and practice, and thus will be not better than his/her predecessor in foreseen future.

In the final analysis, it is essential to limit the term of leadership, except some specific consideration. In order to strengthen the democracy and to prevent corruption, and in order to ensure the actively initiatives, leaders should step down after certain time [你确定有这样用法表示一段时间？], and at the same time, this should not be an invariable creed according to special situation.

文章的思路很清晰，分析的也很全面，到位，佩服！有一些小的缺点，如短语的准确性，可能是疏忽。同志们仍需努力啊！