Issue70 [076G飞跃小组]Torero_L第三次作业

Torero_LUID: 2289518

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."

1.领导人的改变对成功来说是必须的
2.过分的稳定很可能阻碍发展
3.但频繁更换也有很多弊端

Should leader step down after five years in any profession, such as business, politics, education and government? The speaker asserts that it is often necessary. I fundamentally agree with the notion that in order to be success for any enterprise, revitalization through new leadership is indispensable, while the speaker overlooks several drawbacks the frequent change brings.

Undoubtedly, the revitalization through new leadership is necessary to the success of any enterprise, since different people have diverse thoughts and new people are likely to bring new concepts to their groups. Lacking such new factors, the enterprise may stay deadly and have no vitality; what is even worse, such situation will probably lead to the breakdown of the group. The decline of a great number of feudal dynasties is the good example. Most of these dynasties are strong in the beginning, while declined quickly since the leader became incapable due to the stabilization of the power. Whether they are care or careless to the government affairs, they still stay in the same position. Undeniably, it is no good to the government. Even strong as the most famous Chinese Tang dynasty which was the strongest country in that time in the world has not escaped from these ranges. If they have the system of changing leaders in a certain time the result may be different. Numerous new good ideas and revolutions can be put into effect, and then the country may keep strong for more time. In short, to be success the alteration of leaders is necessary.

Furthermore, the excessively stabilization may bring negative influence to the enterprise which will hinder the development of it. It is not strange that people can stay clear-headed when they become the leaders at the beginning. Yet as the time goes, the stabilized situation will change their minds. Thus, lacking the competition these beginning minds disappear and they may do things that are harmful to the benefit of the enterprise. For example, I heard a piece of news recently which said that a people were sentenced to death because of the corruption when he was an official, whereas he has once been a good leader. It is the good condition and stabilized situation which damage him and meanwhile hurt the image of government. He would have fewer opportunities to embark on the road of degeneration and crime. Therefore, limitation of the term of the leadership is obviously advantageous to the success of the enterprise.

We cannot ignore the disadvantages the frequent change brings, although it is really benefit to the success of any enterprise. There is no doubt that the new leader will bring diverse notion to the enterprise, yet meanwhile the mind of the leader is probably not mature either. They are not necessarily to complete the work better than their predecessors. Also, the often change might bring confusion to the enterprise, as it will give a picture of unsteady to its faculty. It just likes the example of the manager of a sport team. People usually choose to change the manager when the performance of the team is not satisfied, while the method is frequently proved to be unreasonable. Because as the leader of a team the manager needs enough time to carry out his measure. Unfortunately, he has already been fired before his mind can be fully executed. This is the same case in the enterprise. Some of the plans are not easily carried out in a short term, thus, five years, to some extent, is too short for the leader to achieve his projects. In a word, renewal through new leadership is advantageous to the success of enterprise, but the negative affection it brings to the enterprise should also be noticed.  

In the final analysis, the revitalization of new leadership will certainly promote the enterprise in most of the profession, since they can bring new factors to the field. However, it is not appropriate to ignore the drawbacks the frequent change brings.