issue70 第30次作业(模考1)

pinuoUID: 2328081

1.        同意作为一种机制，领导轮换机制有很多好处，如使企业有生气，有竞争意识，防止权利滥用。但不同意任何行业都必须在5年后下台，这取决于不同的行业，有些领域并不一定要轮换机制，不同的行业这个时间也会不同。
2.        领导轮换机制有很多好处。
细说：
1>      如使企业有生气，
2>      有竞争意识，
3>      防止权利滥用
                反说：没有这种机制的弊端。
3.        说明不同领域因为实际情况的不同，会不同
4.        政治领域，这个机制很重要，例子，世界上民主国家都有这种机制，而独裁政府没有这种机制。
5.        商业领域，这个机制不应太strict，更要考察这个领导的对企业的业绩。例子 Gates，HP
6.        教育领域，这个机制计划不使用。因为学问是积累的过程。Experienced scholar更时候领导这个领域。（没时间写）
7.        In sum


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: 599          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-8-28 10:43:01

I agree with the assertion revitalization through new leadership can help make a success in the group because of certain advantages it holds, such as maintaining a high efficiecy, preventing corruption and the like. Nevertheless, setting five years as a standard, in my view, is too harsh for every profession. Wether this policy should be used and how long the leader should stay in power, which is far from an straightfoward issue, should be determine on a case-by-case- base.

Few will argue, changing the leader in a group, which served as a new management policy emerged in recent hundrends years, is  a effective and pratically reasonable mechinism because it can bring several merits which can deal with the defects of traditional managements. First, changing a leader in certian time pan can enhance competation, thus improve the efficiency of group as a whole. Because everyone can be elected as the leader of the group if he is confirmed qualified. Not as the traditional leaders they generally stay in power in a life long time. Second, it can prevent corruption which trouble the traditional group and can result in a distrous outcome. Accompanied with such policy, there are always several supervise measures which served as a serveilize function to avaluate the work of the incumbent leaders and make their work transperent to all the group members. In short, the new policy can help benefit the groups because of its inherent advantages.

However, should this policy adopted in every groups? should the leaders stay in power for five years at most in every area? Certainly not. This policy hold certain advantage we discussed above, it will surely bring some side-effects if it is force to adopted in every groups because of different requirments and working process and other factors of different groups makes them have far different management policy.

First, consider political area in which the shift of leadership has always be regarde as one basic reqirements of a democratic nation. Generally, the leader s of government-- no matter the president, or the officials of states, city or distracts-- are reqired to be reelected.  Such policy is written in constituation or the local law to guarantee its authorities. The imperical evidence that the countries implement this policy undergo a health, effective, transparent governments and their people fully enyoy the democracy and other rights the constituation present them, compared with several nations in the world their leader can stay in power at will  develop a totalirism in their nation and harm the democracy and basic human rights of their citiziens, demostrated that it is suitable  in political area.

Then, consider adoption in economical organization. The most large companies in the world, to guarentee a effective leadership to lead their companies make the best achievements, always has certain policies. Their leaders can be changed if they are found unqualified or hurt the interests of company. However, it is not necessary to set a standard require a leader to leave his position after several years even he is experienced in this area and doing an excellent work in their position. Hence, in business wold, this policy can be used but time limit should not be set.

In sum, Revitalization through new leadership, served as an effective way to the success of the group, has been adopted in nearly areas but not all. How long the leader should stay in power is depended on which areas they are in. In polical areas, there should be regulation decide how long he can stay in his positon, while a fixed time span is not nessary for a business leader.

pinuoUID: 2328081

I agree with the assertion revitalization through new leadership can help achieve a success in the group because of certain advantages it holds, such as maintaining a high efficiency, preventing corruption and the like. Nevertheless, setting five years as a standard, in my view, is too harsh for every profession. Weather this policy should be used and how long the leader should stay in power, which is far from an straightforward issue, should be determine on a case-by-case- base.

Few will argue, changing the leader in a group, which served as a new management policy emerged in recent hundreds years, is an effective and practically reasonable mechanism because it can bring several merits which can deal with the defects of traditional managements. First, changing a leader in certain time pan can enhance competition, thus improve the efficiency of group as a whole. Because everyone can be elected as the leader of the group if he is confirmed qualified. Not as the traditional leaders they generally stay in power in a life long time. Second, it can prevent corruption which trouble the traditional group and can result in a disastrous outcome. Accompanied with such policy, there are always several supervising measures which served to evaluate the work of the incumbent leaders and make their work transparent to all the group members. In short, the new policy can help benefit the groups because of its inherent advantages.

However, should this policy adopted in every group? Should the leaders stay in power for five years at most in every area? It is tempting to hasten that the answer is “yes” with respect to several different areas. This policy hold certain advantage we discussed above, it will surely bring some side-effects if it is force to adopted in every groups because of different requirements and working process and other factors of different groups makes them have far different management policy.

First, consider political area in which the shift of leadership has always be regarded as one basic requirements of a democratic nation. Generally, the leader s of government-- no matter the president of nation, or the officials of states, city or distracts-- are required to be reelected.  Such policy is written in constitution or the local law to guarantee its authorities. The empirical evidence that the countries implement this policy undergo a health, effective, transparent governments and their people fully enjoy the democracy and other rights the constitution present them, compared with the leaders in several nations, who can stay in power as long as they want, served as dictators in their nation and harm the democracy and basic human rights of their citizens, demonstrated that this policy is perfectly suitable in political area, though the time span varies according to the different condition of special nations.

Then, consider adoption in economical organization. Most of large companies in the world, to guarantee an effective leadership to lead their companies and make the best achievements, always have certain policies. Their leaders can be changed if they are found unqualified or hurt the interests of company. However, it is not necessary to set a standard require a leader to leave his position after several years even he is experienced in this area and doing an excellent work in their position. Hence, in business world, it is reasonable to implement this policy while unreasonable to set a fixed time limit.

In sum, revitalization through new leadership, served as an effective way to the success of the group, has been adopted in nearly areas. How long the leader should stay in power is depended on which areas they are in. In political areas, there should be regulation decide how long he can stay in his position, while a fixed time span is not reasonable for a business leader, whose work should be mainly evaluated by his performance.