【Big Fish】3月11日Issue070-By gaobao

gaobaoayu123UID: 2740997

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: 444
TIME: 00:44:42
DATE: 2010/3/12 0:22:52

When comes to the issue that whether a leader could in power for a long time. It always arouses the discussion. I completely agree with the speaker's assertion that in any profession, those in power should transfer their leadership to the new leader.

To begin with, to err is human; everyone has more or less selfish motives that a long period in power may bring something unexpected. A long period leadership could make a wise leader blind. Mao Zedong, for instance, the greatest leader of Chinese Communist, established PRC.1949. As wise as he is, he defeated by the long period in power, which made him confirmed the Culture Revolution that nearly destroyed China. Long time period leadership would engender the abuse of power, because no one can resist the temptation of right, which is very dangerous to an organization. Even worse, the longtime in power would turn the initially democratic management to the autocratic one.

In addition, new leadership can infuse the fresh blood to an organization. The drastic reform always established by the new leaders. They are bold, vigorous, young and creative; all of these are the necessary thing lead to success. George Washington, first president of the United States and one of the most important leaders in United States history. Although Washington did not announce it publicly until September 1796, he was determined that under no conditions would he allow his name to be put forward for a third term. Though all the contemporary civilians want him stay, he said: It was time for the transfer of power, by constitutional means, to other hands. Washington is great, he known the result clearly if the country ruled by the same person for a so long time. Fresh politicians would bring new policy which is very important to an enterprise to progress.

Further more, a five-year period is proper tenure in most circumstances. Longer term would ossify the enterprise while shorter ones may create instability. A success example is United States; the four-year period let this country stable and prosperous. Japan, as a counter-example, is not so lucky, within recent five years Japan's prim minister had changed three times, which is the main reason of their society roily and the economy declined drastically，because a too short period tenure can not form a steady policy atmosphere. Thus, the period expand is important and five-year is a appropriate choice.

In conclusion, due to the above mentioned words, it is obvious that it is necessary for the organizations to change their leaders every five years or so, and hand down their powers to the new leadership in order to brought new thoughts in the enterprise.

  

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

When comes to the issue that whether a leader could in power for a long time. It always arouses the discussion. I completely agree with the speaker's assertion that in any profession, those in power should transfer their leadership to the new leader.

To begin with, to err is human; everyone has more or less selfish motives that a long period in power may bring something unexpected. A long period leadership could make a wise leader blind. Mao Zedong, for instance, the greatest leader of Chinese Communist, established PRC.1949. As wise as he is, he defeated by the long period in power, which made him confirmed the Culture Revolution that nearly destroyed China. Long time period leadership would engender the abuse of power, because no one can resist the temptation of right, which is very dangerous to an organization. Even worse, the longtime in power would turn the initially democratic management to the autocratic one.

In addition, new leadership can infuse the fresh blood to an organization. The drastic reform always established by the new leaders. They are bold, vigorous, young and creative; all of these are the necessary thing lead to success. (我觉得应该在解释一下新的领导带来的活力是怎么发挥作用的，具体的论述) George Washington, first president of the United States and one of the most important leaders in United States history. Although Washington did not announce it publicly until September 1796, he was determined that under no conditions would he allow his name to be put forward for a third term. Though all the contemporary civilians want him stay, he said: It was time for the transfer of power, by constitutional means, to other hands. Washington is great, he known the result clearly if the country ruled by the same person for a so long time. Fresh politicians would bring new policy which is very important to an enterprise to progress. （这个例子我觉得不是很恰当，应该举一个新鲜的总统带给美国新的活力，这样可能更有力）

Further more, a five-year period is proper tenure in most circumstances. Longer term would ossify the enterprise while shorter ones may create instability. A success example is United States; the four-year period let this country stable and prosperous. Japan, as a counter-example, is not so lucky, within recent five years Japan's prim minister had changed three times, which is the main reason of their society roily and the economy declined drastically，because a too short period tenure can not form a steady policy atmosphere. Thus, the period expand is important and five-year is a appropriate choice.（我觉得五年在IT行业来说就有点长了吧，政治是各个行业的一方面，不具有普遍性）

In conclusion, due to the above mentioned words, it is obvious that it is necessary for the organizations to change their leaders every five years or so, and hand down their powers to the new leadership in order to brought new thoughts in the enterprise.

首先，很抱歉，周末一直很忙，所以没来得及，现在赶紧补上。
逻辑很好。
我认为，这个题也给已从反面说说，比如说老的领导人可能更具经验，这点也是很重要的。
而且，这个题目说的是各个行业，不仅是政治啊，这样子是不是有点跑偏了？应该从其他角度也谈谈。
继续加油：）