Issue70【Triple Week】第3次练习by mymuro

mymuroUID: 2356228

抓狂。。。搜集资料辛苦+超时+不小心覆盖以致重写一遍 T_T

According to the speaker, leaders in every field should step down after five years for reform through new leadership is insurance to success. However, in my point of view, not all professions need to be revitalized after five years. The surest way to success is assessing regularly to check whether the leader of an enterprise should be changed or not. If it is necessary to bring revitalization, then it is advisable to change a leader. If not, we had better keep the stability in an enterprise.

Admittedly, in some professions, changing the leader regularly is a practical way to throw up rigid thought, prevent corruption, and introduce competition and new idea of management. As the development of contemporary society, it is easier for one to be left behind than before. People in power of every profession have no exception. If a leader manages an enterprise with rigid thought without catching up with the requirement of his profession, then he should step down for the sake of his lagging leadership. Moreover, in politics and government, without fear of losing their authority, it is possible that a leader tends to abuse his power for his personal benefits. Changing the leader regularly can limit the situation of abusing power. Besides, in order to get the position, competition between capable people will be fierce. As a result, a more talented leader will take office together with his new idea of management.

However, in other professions, it is vital to keep the stability and experience. As people says, "Roma is not built in one day". Only through long-term efforts can there be success. It is unpractical to draw a conclusion that five years is long enough for leaders in every profession to get ahead for the sake that every profession has unique situation. People should be patient to see the future instead of being covered by short-term benefits. If a leader is changed without careful consideration, a well-functioning system established by the former leader may be fundamentally destroyed and therefore, the stability will be needlessly gone. Furthermore, experience is especially important in some professions. The longer a leader takes office, the more experienced he will become. For these professions, accumulating experience is more important than introducing a new idea. The existence of Supreme Court justice and tenured professor can exactly explain this reason.

In fact, as every enterprise has its unique condition, a more practical way to ensure success is assessing leaders regularly to check the need of revitalization. It is absurd to change a leader who manages his enterprise well just because he has been in power for five years. Probably a well-functioning system will be unnecessarily destroyed in this situation. Therefore, this kind of rule should be amended to be a more flexible one. Regular assess is a reasonable way to decide whether a leader should be changed or not. If the leadership is inferior based on the result of assess, a new leader should replace the position. However, if the leadership is wonderful, we had better remain the position unchanged so as not to keep a well-functioning system running.

In the final analysis, the speaker, to some extent, ignores the unique situation of different professions and the significance of keeping stability and experience. Actually, a more rational way is to establish regularly assess rule to check out the need of revitalization.