issue70【today is the day小组】第一次作业 by baby12036

baby12036UID: 2522977

I can not agree more with the speaker's point that revitalizing through new leadership is a good path to success for many enterprises. But, is that true that the method could be considered as surest as in any profession, like the speaker asserts? Well, it all depends on the specific situation, which means different definition of success as well, we are talking about.
For instances, a successful government leader will somehow be defined as just and incorrupt. However, because of long period of tenure without fear of losing their position, many of the leaders may tend to abuse their power for personal benefit. In china, the corruption of government officials, involving thousands of millions of RMB, is said to be related with some unreliable institution of electing leading officials which indicate that , at least, when it comes to government leaders, it is necessary to have some "new leadership" after a five-year-long tenure.
Beside, when a enterprise considering initiative and new ideas as the most important factors of its success, a new leader would undoubtedly be one of the best choices they have. In 1981, Jack Welch became the youngest chief executive officer in the history of General Electric Company (GE). Under years of lead, GE, which was supposed to be a corporation full of bureaucracy, had turned to be
a vital and one of most profitable companies in the world. So, in my opinion, a enterprise, especially the one want to keep their pace with times, should seriously establish a reasonable /feasible system on electing new members of leader position.
however, what interested me is that if it is really a must for a enterprise, no matter what profession it is , no matter what kind of situation it facing with, to deprive the leader of his power, even he or she seemed to be capable for another 5-year-long outstanding work? The answer is "no". It might be unnecessary to limit the term of leadership in private areas, business in particular, because persistent "profit", which may be reduce after the changing of new leadership, is what a private organization pursue most. Steve Paul Jobs, the founder of Apple Inc, one of the most famous computer companies of the world, would be a perfect example. When news comes to public that Jobs probably quit his position as the CEO of Apple Inc, the investors of the company, instead of cheering for the possible success the new leader will lead them to, are all worried about the future development of Apple. It seems unwise to deprive some leader in private area who is doing great job for the mere purpose to have some new ideas for the enterprise.
To sum up, whatever else may be said, most people would agree that it is true in some area, like politics and government, a new leadership would be a sound path to success, while in some other conditions, there is nowhere more ridicules than on the assertion that it is the surest way to success, without considering the specific differences every profession have. So, what kind of leader would lead the enterprise to success? To me, it is a suitable one perfectly matched with the organization's definition of "success", not always a new one.

revealingUID: 2507748