0910G issue70 by [NAF TTG]421899282

421899282UID: 2595732

TOPIC: ISSUE 70
WORDS: 570

TIME: 01:40:00

As known, we are far from the lifelong leadership. New leaders often seem to equal passion and creativity. However, the trifles and disadvantages during the change of leaders also can not be neglected. With five years as a limit? Does it really revitalize the administration? I deeply doubt.

The new ideas of the new leaders may also turned out to be partial consideration because of less knowledge about the real world in this field. After a new CEO taking over the corporation, the first thing always is knowing about the present situation of the company. That means thousands of documents about sales, market share, staff information, etc to be skimmed. Even the viceCEO may just master part of the information and need to spend time seeing the whole picture after promoted. And all the new ideas and strategies should be re-assessed after the procedure of catching up. Whether his blueprint can still work out is unknown.

Apart from the statistics and words which representing the condition of the workplace, another significant information the leaders held and should hold is the get-along-well relationship with both their own staff and the administrators in other companies or the government. Even the relationship between two nations could be affected by the friendship between the heads of these two countries. The intimacy of the leaders could probably enforce the diplomacy of the two countries, taking Ronald Reagan of US and as example. This cherished resource is difficult to developed, maintained, and passed down. In this case, the change of leaders also means the loss of the interpersonal relationship. Then it would take the new leader plenty of time and energy to get along with his staff to reestablish a well-running team. So as the interpersonal relationship outside.

As known, two persons can not agree on everything even twins. The new leader is probably differentiate from the old leader on several issues. Say the use of certain fund, the former mayor applied the fund to build a railway to improve the system of transportation, while the new mayor consider the medical cover is urgent. Since the railway is not actually carried out to construct, the fund may be rearranged by the new mayor. However, prework for the railway, the investigation and design, is wasted. Evidently, the divergence of the former and new leaders may cause waste of resource.

What's more, the clear limit five years could impede the achievement of the leaders' potential. Will the next leader support my program? If he won't, my program won't complete and work out. In this case, the leader may choose to accomplish some short programs instead. The idea to do nothing radically will aggravate as the step-down is coming around the corner. Let the next leader to deal with the troublesome stuff, since i can not make a considerable progress within my term. If this is the case, who will make the breakthrough?

Since changing leaders possesses so many disadvantages, should we change leaders? Absolutely! The life-long leadership is certainly out-of-date.  However, with five years as limit does not seem wise.  Would you like the competent leader to step down just after five years? Would you like the incompetent leader to be in charge for whole five years? The  institution of leader-changing is supposed to be perfected for the sake of all. When the candidate is ready and the time is right, welcome our new leader with open arms.