issue70 [0710G-summer小组]第一次作业by dragonrace

dragonraceUID: 178536

[题目issue70]
In any profession-bussiness,politics,educational,government-those in power should step down after five years.The surest path to success for any enterprise if vevitalization through new leadership."

[中文提纲及英文关键词]：
    1.确实有一些政府，企业的领导人在位很长时间，而他们也确实领导着团队不断取得成功，如microsoft总裁billgates作为微软的领导人几十年，带领着微软公司不断发展壮大，成为世界上第一大软件帝国，再比如格林斯潘(Alan Greenspan)，在担任美国联邦储备委员会(Federal Reserve)主席的二十几年中，总是在关键时刻拯救美国经济，很好的掌控了美国经济的发展轨迹。
    2.但是在更普遍的情况下，世界上任何一个领域的领导人都不可能在一个较长时间内总是做出正确的判断和选择，尤其是名利(fame and wealth)，地位(the position of great distinction)，权力(power)等会使得原本理智的领导堕落，腐败；如果一个领导层长期不发生变化，那么权力的滥用(abuse)可能会导致专制主义(absolutism)，进而产生独裁统治(Autocracy)和独裁者(dictator)。比如二战期间的独裁者墨索里尼Mussolini(1883-1945)，在1922至1943年在西班牙实行法西斯极权(totalitarianism)统治，将人民置于国家的高压下20多年；他的长期统治，使西班牙国内陷入了极度的恐慌和混乱；他的一意孤行给国家和社会造成了极大的灾难。这个事例恰恰说明了领导集团的长时间的不变化造成的权力滥用是产生专制主义独裁统治的温床。
    3.有规定期限的任期可以解决上述问题，通过更换领导，可以将竞争机制(competitive mechanisms)引入企业，政府或者其他团体，进而给这个团体注入新的血液和新的活力(leading ideologies)，更加符合时代的要求，同时可以防止权力的滥用和独断专行的行为。如美国首任总统华盛顿(George Washington(1732-1799))于1796年11月发表了著名的告别书(Farewell Address)，开创了美国总统主动辞职的先河，留给了美国一个自由，民主，共和的政府体制和社会意识形态。
    4.领导任期过长可能导致体制的僵化(ossify)，但是过短则有可能引发团队不稳定(instability)的问题。比如2001年初至2002年底，AOL时代华纳(AOL Time Warner)得领导层频繁更换，创始人steve Case,Richard Parsons,首席运营官Robert Pittman，副董事长Ted Turner相继辞职，使得美国在线业绩一落千丈，陷入了史无前例的巨额财政赤字(fiscal deficit)；著名经济学家jim collins在他的书《good to great》中也提出：“Those who launch radical change programs and wrenching restructurings will almost certainly fail to make the leap.”。这些事例说明了领导的任期也不能太短。因此设置一个恰当的的领导人任期时间长度是才有可能取得成功。

[issue70]
[600字]
Should persons in power step down after a-five-year leadership?The disscussion of this issue about the leading period has come into vague during the last decade,especially in the field of politics and finance.People's opinions are divergent on such a complex and contraversial topic.The author declares that any enterprise should put away the former leaders and accept new ones to insure its success,however,the judgement should,in my mind,depends on a more convincing analysis.  

First and foremost,some leaders of the goverment or companies,who stay in a position of great distinction for a long time,indeed,brings the group great success,such as Bill Gates,the CEO of microsoft who makes the company more successful and more influential in the world during the last thirty years.The same situation happened to Federal Reserve and its leader Alan Greenspan who introducted the stable development of economic in America in the last two decades.Their achievements can partly attribute to their excellent character above normal people.

However,most leaders in the world,no matter in which field,can not make a correct choice and judgement through a long term.The distinctive position,fame and wealth,especially the power can seduce an initially wise and cool-minded leader.The long-term leadership may probably make things worse resulting from the abuse of power,bringing on absolutism and even the autocracy and dictator.An example of such case,Mussolini(1883-1945),comes into my mind.His totalitarianism rule from 1922 to 1943 suffered people in Spain a lot and his absolutism did huge damage to society and the country.This reflects that a long-term leadership is to absolutism what the earth is to plants.

Things are quiet different when periodic change in leadership is introduced.By maintaining proper competitive mechanisms,the enterprise is always able to replenish itself with fresh blood and new leading ideologies.Newly emerged leaders bring new ways of leading and managing,and they are more likely to keep in better touch with the changing times as well.What is more,this change can prevent the emergence of absolutism by moving away the "earth" it relys on.History is replete with evidence to demostrate this point.The first president of America,George Washington(1732-1799),declined being the president for a third time in his famous "Farewell Address" in 1796,resulting in freedom,democracy and republic in the United States of America even up to now.

From the analysis above,no one can deny that too-long-term leadership usually ossify the group,yet we should also be aware of the harm due to the too-short-term leadership,which is probably the cause of instability.In his works 《good to great》，Jim Collins presents his opinion:"Those who launch radical change programs and wrenching restructurings will almost certainly fail to make the leap.".This can be given a concrete example that from 2001 to 2002,after AOL Time Warner changed its four chief leaders,the company's achievements were down directly and was also trapped in terrible fiscal deficit,which indicates the period of leadership should not be too short in view of the stableness.

For the reasons and analysis presented above,I commit to the notion that neither absolute stability nor rash alternation will lead to the success of any enterprise.In order to keep relatively stable composition and at the same time preventing if from any rigidity,enterprises or other groups should work out proper term for leadership to ensure their success.

谢谢sanliangmm的细心修改。存在的问题还有：分析例子有欠缺，为什么举这个例子，这个例子说明什么问题没有分析透彻；衔接词的运用不是很够；
谢谢eenbr的细心修改;
依然存在的问题我会抽时间修改。
谢谢你们。

[ 本帖最后由 dragonrace 于 2007-7-18 20:46 编辑 ]

sanliangmmUID: 2363921

赞中文提纲！！！学习之
Should persons in power step down after a-five-year leadship?（问句开头，很好，leadership）The discussion of this issue about the leading period has come into vague during the last decade,especially in the field of politics and finance.People's opinions are divergent on such a complex and contraversial topic.The author declares that any enterprise should put away the former leaders and accept new ones to insure its success,however,the judgement should,in my mind,depends on a more convincing analysis.  

First and foremost, some leaders of the goverment or company(companies?),who stay in a position of great distinction for a long time,indeed,bings(brings) the group great success,such as Bill Gates,the CEO of microsoft who makes the company more successful and more influential in the world during the last thirty years.The same situation happened to Federal Reserve and its leader Alan Greenspan who introducted the stable development of economic in America in the last two decades.Their achievements can partly attribute to their excellent character above normal people.(例子很好，丰富，不过感觉例子和理论分析应该更紧密点。比如举了例子以后在分析一下)

Hower（However）,most leaders in the world, no matter in which field, can not make a correct choice and judgement across(觉得through更好些) a long term. The distinctive position, fame and wealth, especially the power can seduce an initially wise and cool-minded leader. The long-term leadership may（might） probably make things worse resulting from the abuse of power, bringing on absolutism and even the autocracy and dictator(这个词是指独裁者吧，觉得有点不合适dictature?).An example of such case, Mussolini(1883-1945),comes into my mind. His totalitarianism rule from 1922 to 1943 suffered people(people suffered ) in Spain a lot and his absolutism did huge damage to society and the country.This reflects that a long-term leadership is to absolutism what the earth is to plants.

Things are quiet different when periodic change in leadership is introduced.By maintaining proper competitive mechanisms, the enterprise is always able to replenish itself with fresh blood and new leading ideologies(好词). Newly emerged leaders bring new ways of leading and managing（management）,and they are more likely to keep in better touch with the changing times as well. What is more, this change can prevent the emergence of absolutism by moving away the "earth" it relys on. History is replete with evidence to demostrate this point(好句子！).The first president of America,George Washington(1732-1799),declined being the president for a third time in his famous "Farewell Address" in 1796,resulting in freedom, democracy and republic in the United States of America even up to now.From the analysis above,no one can deny that too-long-term leadership usually ossify the group,yet we should also be aware of the harm due to the too-short-term leadership,which is probably the cause of instability. In his works 《good to great》，Jim Collins presents his opinion:"Those who launch radical change programs and wrenching restructurings will almost certainly fail to make the leap.".This can be given a concrete example that from 2001 to 2002,after AOL Time Warner changed its four chief leaders,the company's achievements were down directly and was also trapped in terrible fiscal deficit,which indicates the period of leadership should not be too short in view of the stableness.（这些例子太棒了，赞例子，不过分析例子我觉得还是有点欠缺）

For the reasons and analysis presented above,I commit to the notion that neither absolute stability nor rash alternation will lead to the success of any enterprise. In order to keep relatively stable composition and at the same time preventing if from any rigidity,enterprises or other groups should work out proper term for leadership to ensure their success.（你的例子都很好，不过我觉得可以适当放弃个别例子，主要把每个例子都能说透，为什么举这个例子，这个例子说明什么问题，还有衔接词的运用我觉得不是很够）

[ 本帖最后由 sanliangmm 于 2007-7-18 19:41 编辑 ]

eenbrUID: 2259468

我觉得作者的思想很深刻，也很全面，我所要提的这方面内容sanliangmm 已指出， 就是希望作者多一些在实例后的分析。
其次是一些小问题，作者有很多拼写的错误，有些sanliangmm没有指出， 我在下面全部做了修改。 当然很钦佩作者的是语言很连贯，语法很严谨。
Should persons in power step down after a-five-year leadership? The discussion of this issue about the leading period has come into vague during the last decade, especially in the field of politics and finance. People's opinions are divergent on such a complex and controversial topic. The author declares that any enterprise should put away the former leaders and accept new ones to insure its success, however, the judgement should, in my mind, depend on a more convincing analysis.  

First and foremost, some leaders of the government or company, who stay in a position of great distinction for a long time, indeed, brings the group great success, such as Bill Gates, the CEO of Microsoft who makes the company more successful and more influential in the world during the last thirty years. The same situation happened to Federal Reserve and its leader Alan Greenspan who introduced the stable development of economy in America in the last two decades. Their achievements can partly attribute to their excellent character above normal people.

However ,most leaders in the world, no matter in which field, can not make a correct choice and judgement across a long term. The distinctive position, fame and wealth, especially the power can seduce an initially wise and cool-minded leader. The long-term leadership may probably make things worse resulting from the abuse of power, bringing on absolutism and even the autocracy and dictator. An example of such case, Mussolini (1883-1945),comes into my mind. His totalitarianism rule from 1922 to 1943 suffered people in Spain a lot and his absolutism did huge damage to society and the country. This reflects that a long-term leadership is to absolutism what the earth is to plants.

Things are quiet different when periodic change in leadership is introduced. By maintaining proper competitive mechanisms, the enterprise is always able to replenish itself with fresh blood and new leading ideologies. Newly emerged leaders bring new ways of leading and managing, and they are more likely to keep in better touch with the changing times as well. What is more, this change can prevent the emergence of absolutism by moving away the "earth" it relies on. History is replete with evidence to demonstrate this point. The first president of America, George Washington (1732-1799),declined being the president for a third time in his famous "Farewell Address" in 1796,resulting in freedom, democracy and republic in the United States of America even up to now.

From the analysis above, no one can deny that too-long-term leadership usually ossifies the group, yet we should also be aware of the harm due to the too-short-term leadership, which is probably the cause of instability. In his works 《good to great》，Jim Collins presents his opinion: "Those who launch radical change programs and wrenching restructurings will almost certainly fail to make the leap." This can be given a concrete example that from 2001 to 2002, after AOL Time Warner changed its four chief leaders, the company's achievements were down directly (and was) also trapped in terrible fiscal deficit, which indicates the period of leadership should not be too short in view of the stableness.

For the reasons and analysis presented above, I commit to the notion that neither absolute stability nor rash alternation will lead to the success of any enterprise. In order to keep relatively stable composition and at the same time preventing it from any rigidity, enterprises or other groups should work out proper term for leadership to ensure their success.