issue70 为我所用第十次作业

jenniferganUID: 2443583

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: 643          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2008-4-5 10:09:52

In many countries, there are similar policies as the speaker says in the statement, leaders should be replaced by other people after a period. The speaker asserts that only in this way  can enterprise be revitalization. However, I don't agree with it to some extent. As far as I am concerned, there are many paths to sucess for enterprise, new leadership is not the surest and mere one.  

First of all, I concede the effection of new leadership, which can bring new management and ideas to the enterprise. And, almost in every society, from ancient time to nowadays, from deveped countries to developing countries, it is commom rule to change leaders for about four or five years. For example, in America, every four year the political leader should be chosen through vote. In China, the political leader should be voted to see whether he or she is capable of their position, and they cannot work on a same position for more than eight years. All these policies are trying to revitalized their societies. So, it works for  so many governments and so much time to prove it.

On a business level, it is true that new leader can bring some new source and atmosphere to a enterprise. Generally, every leader has his or her own principles to cope with the issues they encounter. On the one hand, the action of a leader can influence all the workers in the enterprise. One of my best friend called Joan, she works in a company who CEO is serious to everything, when he works in the office, workers won't say aloud and even they don't dare to conmmunicate with others. However, their new boss is humorous enough to make them works happily. On the other hand, new leader have many friends who can give a hand to enterprises; in some special case, a new leader even can save a company from bankruptcy. Thus, the effect of a new leader in business is also indispensable.
On an education level, the change of leadership also plays an important role in  the process of teaching. New leader gives energy to the school. His or her way of teaching must be different from the formers. They usually bring a revolution to the traditional way, which will be new to the students no matter it is good of bad to them. After all, any new decision or policy should be proved to be effective or not for a period of time. Therefore, it is good for schools.

However, I don't think the replace of the leader is necessary after five years. For one thing, such situations is not abosulte. If the leader is doing well in his position and all the people who were in charged by him approve his contribution, why should he be replaced? Second, In some particular area, the leader is too few to be replaced because there is not any other people who can do the job. For example, the leader in a experiment room, he or she must incharge the whole experiment and he must be the most knowledgeable and experienced with the experiment, there is no person can replace him. Thirdly, no matter in business, politics or education areas, the old leader who was in power for almost five years, they have so much experience that the new leader lacks. This is the greatest advantage of old leader. So in some circumstances, there is actually no need to replaced the older leader just because they have on the position for five years.

In sum, I think five year is a proper time, which can make the leaders do somthing for the public, and also can bring some new ideas to the enterprise. But, in some cases, there is no need to do so. Wether the leader should be changed is depends on the actual situation.


[ 本帖最后由 jennifergan 于 2008-4-5 12:02 编辑 ]

usayaUID: 2374023

In many countries, there are similar policies as thespeaker says in the statement, leaders should be replaced by otherpeople after a period. The speaker asserts that only in this way  canenterprise be revitalization(应该是adj吧). However, I don't agree with it to someextent. As far as I am concerned, there are many paths to sucess forenterprise, new leadership is not the surest and mere one.  

First of all, I concede the effection of new leadership,which can bring new management and ideas to the enterprise. And, almostin every society, from ancient time to nowadays, from deveped(developed) countriesto developing countries, it is commom rule to change leaders for aboutfour or five years. For example, in America, every four year thepolitical leader should be chosen through vote. In China, the politicalleader should be voted to see whether he or she is capable of theirposition(没看懂...), and they cannot work on a same position for more than eight(ten...中国是五年一换)years. All these policies are trying to revitalized(revitalize) their societies.So, it works for  so many governments and so much time to prove it.

On a business level, it is true that new leader canbring some new source and atmosphere to a enterprise. Generally, everyleader has his or her own principles to cope with the issues theyencounter. On the one hand, the action of a leader can influence allthe workers in the enterprise. One of my best friend called Joan, sheworks in a company who CEO is serious to everything, when he works inthe office, workers won't say aloud and even they don't dare toconmmunicate with others. However, their new boss is humorous enough tomake them works happily. On the other hand, new leader have manyfriends who can give a hand to enterprises; in some special case, a newleader even can save a company from bankruptcy. Thus, the effect of anew leader in business is also indispensable.
On an education level, the change of leadership alsoplays an important role in  the process of teaching. New leader givesenergy to the school. His or her way of teaching must be different fromthe formers. They usually bring a revolution to the traditional way,which will be new to the students no matter it is good of bad to them.(这个例子空洞,可以写得具体点,说些具体的政策,随便编呀.)After all, any new decision or policy should be proved to be effectiveor not for a period of time. Therefore, it is good for schools.(这个结论下得太匆忙)

However, I don't think the replace of the leader isnecessary after five years. For one thing, such situations is notabosulte(这个是什么意思?). If the leader is doing well in his position and all thepeople who were(are) in charged by him approve his contribution, why shouldhe be replaced? Secondly, In some particular area, the leader is too few(few 好象没这个用法的吧)to be replaced because there is not any other people who can do thejob. For example, the leader in a experiment room, he or she mustincharge the whole experiment and he must be the most knowledgeable andexperienced with the experiment, there is no person can replace him.Thirdly, no matter in business, politics or education areas, the oldleader who was in power for almost five years, they have so muchexperience that the new leader lacks. This is the greatest advantage ofold leader. So in some circumstances, there is actually no need toreplaced(replace) the older leader just because they have on the position forfive years.

In sum, I think five year is a proper time, which canmake the leaders do somthing for the public, and also can bring somenew ideas to the enterprise. But, in some cases, there is no need to doso. Whether the leader should be changed is depends on the actualsituation.




总体不错,观点明确,结构清晰,就是例子方面需要再进步下