ISSUE70八月13号就考有拍必回

melodyfeatherUID: 2676881

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: 524
TIME: 00:45:00

DATE: 2009-8-8 20:45:04

Should the leaders leave or stay when they have been in that position for a long time? In the past time it has been thought beneficial to keep their leadership. However, it's proved that it's actually harmful for the leaders and the enterprise to keep certain individuals in the position of leadership. 5 years is proper for most cases.

It's true that changing the leaders frequently will result in confusion. After all, the new leaders need time to get acknowledged with details and learn the relationship within the members,
for it's hard for individuals to acquire enough information before be assigned and truly in control of the enterprise. And the difference between the policy and ideas of the old and new leaders also result in the necessity for a period for the members to get used to the change. Thus the switch calls for adjustment of both the leaders and the subordinate.

For instance, Donghai Restaurant, concerning the business of seafood in the town where I live for 15 years, has been changing its owner for 5 years at the frequency of about one leader for one year. At the first 10 years the residents there thought it to be promising for the tastes and the service is the most satisfying, and the staff was believed to be excellent, while it was proved to be failure for the quick changing during the first 5 years and this company is still a small one instead of expanding at the rate of other peers. Too frequent the change would damage the stability, thus the period during which the enterprise is in the control of certain individual should be long enough for ensuring the continuousness of the policy.

However, keeping in the highest position for too long a period would lead to stagnation, which has been proved by history. Being leadership for too long a time, it's hard for the individuals to keep from being arrogant, for the authority would be increasing with the time flees. It's known that the absolute domination of emperors is proved to be failure, not only for that it's monocracy, but also for the long period that the governor has been in control thus lose the anxiety to promote the policy. After all, the leaders would think their leadership has achieve perfect or it's hard for them to find more flaws in their policy as long as the policy has been proposed by themselves. Thus, in order to make change, the enterprise need for new leadership when the leaders had been in position for a long time.

In addition, new leaders could bring about new thoughts and ideas thus the enterprise would be instilled with vigor. Keeping under the leadership of others, one could find it easier to find fault with the policy of the former leaders, thus reform could be easily motivated by the new leaders. It's also that different people have different thought that complement the ideas of leadership. This is also accounting for that in most countries, the leaders of provinces and of the state should be reelected for 4 to years. Necessarily through new leadership could the enterprise be revitalized.

In conclusion, even though stability is important to achieve great goal, it's essential for enterprise to make changes in order to keep vigorous, which could be achieved by new leadership to some extent.

lazionestaUID: 2664713

我的意见纯属个人看法~~因为自己也是还有一周就考试了~修改时就是以“如果是我我会这么写”的心态改的，所以仅供参考啦~希望能对你有帮助

Should the leaders leave or stay when they have been in that position for a long time? In the past time it has been thought beneficial to keep their leadership. However, it's proved that it's actually harmful for the leaders and the enterprise to keep certain individuals in the position of leadership. 5 years is（might be） proper for most cases.

It's true that changing the leaders frequently will result in confusion. After all, the new leaders need time to get acknowledged with details and learn the relationship within the members,
for it's hard for individuals to acquire enough information before be(我觉得改成without being...for a period of time更好) assigned and truly in control of the enterprise. And the difference between the policy and ideas of the old and new leaders also result in the necessity for a period(require a certain period) for the members to get used to the change. Thus the switch calls for adjustment of both the leaders and the subordinate(可以加上and will clearly cost time to accustome this change).

For instance, Donghai Restaurant, concerning the business of seafood in the town where I live for 15 years, has been changing its owner for 5 years at the frequency of about one leader for one year. At the first 10 years the residents there thought it to be promising for the tastes and the service is the most satisfying, and the staff was believed to be excellent, while it was proved to be failure for the quick changing during the first 5 years and this company is still a small one instead of expanding at the rate of（at the same rate as） other peers. Too frequent the change(Changing too frequently) would damage the stability, thus the period during which the enterprise is in the control of certain individual should be long enough for ensuring the continuousness of the policy.
(这段感觉前两句，关于更换频率的叙述有点混乱，而且我觉得可以具体距离一下比如说每次更换领导时连服务员都换，造成新人的服务质量不好，换新厨师后顾客反映不好等等，否则光用没有扩大规模来作论据，不太能说明对稳定性不好，加些具体例子来与后边的论述结合更紧密)

However, keeping in the highest position for too long a period would lead to stagnation, which has been proved by history. Being leadership for too long a time, it's hard for the individuals to keep from（要是我的话会直接用aviod） being arrogant, for the authority would be increasing with the time flees. It's known that the absolute domination of emperors is（has been） proved to be failure, not only for that it's monocracy, but also for the long period that the governor has been in control thus lose the anxiety（passion或desire更好） to promote the policy. After all, the leaders would think their leadership has achieve perfect（brought perfect achievements） or it's hard for them to find more flaws in their policy as long as the policy has been proposed by themselves. Thus, in order to make change, the enterprise need for new leadership when the leaders had been in position for a long time.

In addition, new leaders could bring about new thoughts and ideas thus the enterprise would be instilled with vigor. Keeping under the leadership of others, one could find it easier to find fault with the policy of the former leaders, thus reform could be easily motivated by the new leaders. It's also that（改成Considering that） different people(might) have different thought that complement the ideas of leadership. This is also accounting for that in most countries, the leaders of provinces and of the state should be reelected for 4 to years(every 4 or 5 years). Necessarily through new leadership could the enterprise be revitalized.
(我觉得这两段论述的比前边好，有理有据，不过就是有的句子表达让我觉得有些别扭）

In conclusion, even though stability is important to achieve great goal, it's essential for enterprise to make changes in order to keep vigorous, which could be achieved by new leadership to some extent.
(我觉得结尾应该说的更明白些，点出5年作为任期很合适，既能保证稳定性又能防止独裁，点出5年来照应题目)

我的文章：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=992964&extra=

melodyfeatherUID: 2676881

谢谢指导 2# lazionesta