[i习作temp] issue70 [076G飞跃小组]joyce8512第三次作业 [复制链接]

joyce8512
UID: 2263806

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 0
寄托币: 3259
注册时间: 2006-10-17
精华: 0
帖子: 29

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-2-28 02:14:11 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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: 562
因果型提纲：
正负负。
1．  掌权者五年任期后必须下台有优点。尤其在政治和政府领域。
掌权者对权力没有恐惧容易导致腐败、独裁。  论证：引用名言。
掌权者会失去创造力，而新人带来活力和新想法。  例子：美国总统任期不超过两届，使国家保持活力。
2．  掌权者五年任期后必须下台有缺点。尤其在商业和教育领域。
新人对行业不了解缺乏经验，不容易开展工作。
有些领域需要长时间才能实现目标，频繁换领导不利于稳定发展。反例：Bill Gates
3．  各领域要取得成功不一定非得让掌权者五年下台。
他法：可以广泛吸收群众意见，给企业带来活力。

What is the surest path to success in the business, politics, education or government realm? The speaker claims that the most effective way for any enterprise in these fields is to force the leadership step down after five years in order to gain revitalization. From my perspective, it is true that restrict the term of leadership is to some extent beneficial to the enterprise; however, whether refine the tenure of leadership in five years is reasonable or not is still open to doubt.

Admittedly, compel the leader to step down after a few years do have merits, especially when it comes to politics or government field. Just as the saying goes, "absolute power leads to absolute corruption", it is more liable for a leader to decay when he or she feel no threat to his or her position. Hence, restriction to the tenure of leadership is surly a wise policy to control the corruption. What is more, rarely can a leader who is in a position for a long time have the creativity and passion; on the contrary, a new leader is more likely to infuse vigor and original ideas to the organization, which is necessary to the growing of enterprise. Take America as an example, the tenure of office of the president is four years and the reappointment is twice at best. With such a system, America remains open and passionate at all times, which is more of less brought by every new president.

However, on the other hand, refine the term of leadership in a short time is disadvantageous to the enterprise under some circumstances, particularly in the realm of business or education. The first reason is that a new leader is not as experienced and skilled as the former one, so that he or she may not qualified to use the power rationally, which is adverse to the purpose of forcing the old leader to abdicate from the position. The second reason is, in commercial or educational realm, rarely can a plan be fully carried out within a short time. Therefore, changing leaders frequently will threaten the stability and development of the enterprise in the long run. Simply put Bill Gates for example, who has become the leader of Microsoft for more than twenty years, from the establishment till now. It seems clear that Microsoft will not turn into one of the competitive companies today without the constant leadership of Bill Gates. In short, restrict the tenure is sometimes unsound to the growing of enterprise.

In addition, stubbornly insist on the limitation of tenure to exact five years may be counterproductive to a healthy leadership. If strictly refine the term in five years, a policy will not be fully performed, a method will not be fully tested, a strategy will not be thoroughly executed--all of which will result in the instability even failure of the enterprise. For the purpose of keeping vigor and creativity, there are also a multitude of other ways, such as listen attentively to the groups of people and apply the constructive suggestions into practice.

All in all, in my point of view, as long as the leader is advisable and beneficial to the enterprise, as long as there are constant original and significative ideas infusing to the organization, the enterprise will always remain success in spite of the term of appointment of its leadership.

我怎么这么坚强啊！！！