issue70 永不言弃小组第23次作业 by花生

花生peanutUID: 2487804

70. "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."
在任何领域中----商业、政治、教育、政府----掌权者应该在五年后就让位。这是任何机构获得成功的最好的方式：通过更新领导者而保持活力。高频23
1.
首先重点谈politics and government这两个领域。
首先，在很多领域，特别是在政治和政府上，那些掌握权力的人没有长期在同一个职位而是及时下台是比较好的。我们知道绝对的权力导致绝对的腐败。当领导者不会害怕自己会失去权力时他们就会滥用权力，为了避免腐败，绝对主权，那些手握权力的人是应该逐步的下台。例如自从1977年，中国的全国人民代表大会每五年会举行一次大会进行改选。这样的大会已经成为一种改变中国首脑和国家对内外政策新方向的改变的契机。由于每个领导人采取的思想和政策不是完全相同，所以更新领导人的同时也是在更新一个国家的新政策，好的政策的改变将给该国带来繁荣，人民的幸福。又如华盛顿，美国革命的领导和第一届美国总统。拒绝了担任第三期的总统。正是这个决定和奉献的服务，他赢得了整个国家的尊重因此也成为美国美德的象征。
举例子1：中国的全国人民代表大会（CCP）每五年会改选一次国家主席。
Since 1977, the National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has regularly held a Party congress every five years. The Party congress has often been an occasion for change in China’s top leadership and for new directions in the country’s domestic and foreign policies.
例子2：George Washington

George Washington, the commander of American Revolution and the first president of United States, refused to run for the third term for president. By this decision and devoted services, he gained esteem of the whole country and became a symbol of American Virtue.

2.此外，这样的领导更新方式会激励那些年轻的，有领导潜质的人努力工作，特别是在商业领域，因为他们看到了自己可以成为领导者的机遇和希望。试想，要是一个公司的经理是长期由一个人担任，对于那些员工，根本看不到自己有被提拔和发挥自己领导才能的机会时，他们怎么会有动力去努力奋斗？这样整个公司又怎么有活力？一个新的领导通常有很好的首创精神这样可以带来新的想法。因而这些新融进来的领导者将给公司带来领导和管理上的新方法，同时他们也能很好的采取措施应对复杂的形势变化而不至于素手无策。例如：
3.从另一个角度考虑，经常的更换领导人也会导致很多问题。因为领导人在自己的任期内总是把注意力放在自己的业绩上，想在这个位置上做出一番成绩而忽视了后来的领导者。例如一些市长在自己的任期时，为了做出显赫的业绩以争取能连任，大力的搞建设，滥用资源，大力开发旅游业，忽略环境问题，给生态带来不平衡。虽然在他自己的任期内可能不会暴露出明显的环境污染，生态失调或资源不足的问题，但是当下一任的领导者上任时，这些问题很可能就会暴露出来，甚至恶化。当面对前任领导人留下的一堆烂摊子时，新的领导人会有怎样的想法呢？或许新的领导人在他的任期内只能来处理这样的问题而不是发挥他原有的领导才能来带给整个城市的新发展。
4. 此外，并不是所有的领域都应该绝对的五年就换领导人，例如：在学术方面，教授们经过了漫长的教学积累才有了一定的学术基础，有了丰富的经验。同时也为学生以及学校的教学体制制定了一定的发展教育计划，若更换的频繁对学校以及学生的发展不好。而且新上任的领导人缺乏必要的技术和经验来应对存在的问题，因此他们通常需要一定的时期来适应。
5.总之，更换领导人给机构带来活力是必要的，但是并不是任何领域，越频繁的更换就越好，要考虑具体的领域和具体的情况。

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: 657
DATE: 2009-3-3 14:28:43

The speaker asserts a dual-claim that those in power should step down after five year in whatever profession and the revitalization through new leadership is the surest way to success. As far as I concerned, revitalizing through new leadership is necessary for an enterprise, however, frequently changing of leader may also raise some problems.

Firstly, in many areas, especially in politics and government, it might be better those in power don't hold the position all the time and should step down regularly. As we all known, absolute power makes absolute corruption. The leaders would tend to abuse their power when they have no fear of losing the power. In order to avoid from corruption, autarchy, those in power should step down regularly. For example, since 1977, the National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party has regularly held a Party congress every five years. The Party congress has often been a occasion for change in China's top leadership and for new directions in the country's domestic and foreign policies. Because every leader usually takes different policies to government the country, so changing leader would better for a country's becoming increasingly prosperous due to the newly changed model management methods. Take George Washington as another example, Washington, commander of American Revolution and the first president of Unite State, refuse to run for the third term for president. By this decision and devoted services, he gained esteem of the whole country and became the symbol of American virtue.

In addition, such system, especially in business profession, might simulate the young man's morale to work hard since they can see the opportunity and hope to be a future leader as long as through their efforts. Considering the case that the manager position always belongs to one person, how can we expect the employees work hard with 100 percent energy for company? Every person has self-actualization need including accomplishment and opportunities for advancement according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs theory. And a new leadership usually has greater initiative and would bring in new ideas. What's more, the newly emerged leaders would bring ways of leading and managing, and they are more likely to keep better touch with the changing times as well.

On the other hand, frequently changing leader will also bring about some potential problems. In order to realize the dream of taking another term, every leader usually tend to focus on achievement in his term and in his position. If we cast a look back at the history of management, we are not difficult to find some case that some mayors exhausted resource to build their city or dedicated the tourism development just for the brilliant achievement in their terms as a mayor regardless of some potential problems such as environment pollution, the ecological unbalance, unreasonable utilization of resource, and so forth. When the new mayor takes the position, he may dispose of the mess in all his time in the position rather than bring new development of the city. Considering from this angle, frequently changing leader is not surest path to success.

Finally, not all those in power should step down after five years. Take education profession as an instance, as a general rule, professors have abundant experience in their long teaching careers. Besides, they may formulate a long-term plan for the students' development in academic. If these professors or teachers are changed every five years or more frequently, there is no doubt that it is unbenefited for students and the whole school's development. In addition, for new leaders often lack of necessary skills and experience to cope with the existing problems, they need a period of time to adapt.

To sum up, every coin has two sides, so does this issue. Admittedly, changing leadership would be a proper path to success for certain profession but not any profession. Furthermore, the limited time of five years also is too extreme. We should consider specific problem through concrete analysis.