【辉太郎杀G大队】7/26作业by sindytt (Issue136)

sindyttUID: 2661721

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: 665


The author concludes that the best way to succeed is employ new leader to revitalize an enterprise every five years. From my perspective, I concede with the author insofar that new leader can bring new ideas in management, research and so on. However we can't neglect the negative aspects of regular change of leaders.

Based on many vivid examples in history, we benefit a lot from changing leadership of a group, a company or even a society and deficiencies of a long term leadership is obvious. In the past, most countries is under the leadership of a monarchal government, which means there is an emperor take charge of everything in his country. The nations believe that he is born loyal and all his appointment is right, which they must obey. People even have no basic human right such as liberty and equality. No fear of losing his power, the emperor usually abuses his power. Because no one dears to blame him for his faults and he loses nothing even if he makes a big mistake. No matter how educated one is, it is human nature of having desires. By a contrast to current democracy in most countries around the world, a leader election is held every four or five years. Admittedly, the policy of the five-year change not only injects fresh vigor to a country but also leads a country to a higher level of development.

However we see that Roosevelt is in office for thirteen years. In the early year of his political career, he rescued America out of a great economic crisis. Besides, he shouldered the heavy burden of the Second World War in his late year of his political career. For the duration of his government, American experienced a huge development in economy, politics and many other aspects. The example breaks down our illusion that if an enterprise changes his leader every five years, it is a sure that the enterprise will succeed. Concerning the relation between leadership and success, more factors should be taken into consideration. From the case of Roosevelt, we gets to know that rich experience and good insight all contribute to a success, not less important than revitalization.

It is a risk to change the main leaders of a company. It all depends that whether it will bring benefits or harms depends. Although the new leadership brings creation and revitalization to a company, in the meantime, he also should spend time adapting to the new environment and get to know the company in every parts of it. He may miss the chance when he is in adaptive phase. Also he may make a great mistake because of his lack of knowledge about the company. We can forgive a freshman's fault, but if the fault brings harm to the whole company, then why we should take the regular change policy? Experience counts! We can't replace a captain with a new sailor and we can't change a leader of a research group with a young graduate. Experience is an indispensable factor to a group to achieve success. Moreover, when a leader becomes a nirvana studio, it can't be changed. Martin Luther King, for instance, is like the light in the fight of racial discrimination. Even if he died, he is still the leader in people's heart. So when a leader plays more role in spiritual field than in practical meaning, the change is not feasible any longer.

In sum, I agree that a regular change can keep the energy and bring new revolution into a company, which may result success. Nevertheless, it is not always the case. Even if I make the length more flexible-not strictly meaning 5 years, a regular change is a risk, which may bring unpredictable harm. In addition, in my point of view, if we want to bring revitalization to a company, changing leader is not the only means. We can employ new consultant, employ new employee into every department, which may also reach the goal.

ApplemangoUID: 2661244

The author concludes that the best way to succeed is to employ new leader to revitalize an enterprise every five years. From my perspective, I concede with the author insofar that new leader can bring new ideas in management, research and so on. However we can't neglect the negative aspects of regular change of leaders.

Based on many vivid examples in history, we benefit a lot from changing leadership of a group, a company or even a society and deficiencies of a long term leadership is obvious. In the past, most countries are under the leadership of a monarchal government, which means there is an emperor take charge of everything in his country.（直接换成独裁的单词就好了，文章本身已经很长了，该简化的就要简化） The nations believe that he is born loyal and all his appointments are right, which they must obey. People even have no basic human right such as liberty and equality. No fear of losing his power, the emperor usually abuses his power. Because no one dears to blame him for his faults and he loses nothing even if he makes a big mistake. No matter how educated one is, it is human nature of having desires. By a contrast to current democracy in most countries around the world, a leader election is held every four or five years. Admittedly, the policy of the five-year change not only injects fresh vigor to a country but also leads a country to a higher level of development. (这一段你一直在说执政时期太长有什么不好的，但是跟5年没有任何关系阿，你没有说清楚到底五年长还是短，最后一句反而显得奇怪。)

However we see that Roosevelt is in office for thirteen years. In the early year of his political career, he rescued America out of a great economic crisis. Besides, he shouldered the heavy burden of the Second World War in his late year of his political career. For the duration of his government, American experienced a huge development in economy, politics and many other aspects. The example breaks down our illusion that if an enterprise changes his leader every five years, it is a sure that the enterprise will succeed. (第一个论段是在让步说，长期不更换领导人是会产生不良后果的，更换领导人可以带来活力。这里又说把任期限定在5年不正确。感觉尤其是这一段的最后一句和分论点很分散) Concerning the relation between leadership and success, more factors should be taken into consideration. From the case of Roosevelt, we gets to know that rich experience and good insight all contribute to a success, not less important than revitalization.
It is a risk to change the main leaders of a company. It all depends that whether it will bring benefits or harms depends. Although the new leadership brings creation and revitalization to a company, in the meantime, he also should spend time adapting to the new environment and get to know the company in every parts of it. He may miss the chance when he is in adaptive phase. Also he may make a great mistake because of his lack of knowledge about the company. (最好给点确实的例子，要不光解释，不具有强说服力，有点像你的主观看法，没有例证支持)We can forgive a freshman's fault, but if the fault brings harm to the whole company, then why we should take the regular change policy? Experience counts! We can't replace a captain with a new sailor and we can't change a leader of a research group with a young graduate. Experience is an indispensable factor to a group to achieve success. Moreover, when a leader becomes a nirvana studio, it can't be changed. Martin Luther King, for instance, is like the light in the fight of racial discrimination. Even if he died, he is still the leader in people's heart. So when a leader plays more role in spiritual field than in practical meaning, the change is not feasible any longer.(我觉得你上面三段的结构要调整一下，读下来，感觉是在走之字形，逻辑不连贯，有点东拉西扯的。你现在的逻辑是：更换领导人的利处—) 但是限定在5年不好，年限要根据什么什么特征决定—)频繁更换领导人也不好)

In sum, I agree that a regular change can keep the energy and bring new revolution into a company, which may result success. Nevertheless, it is not always the case. Even if I make the length more flexible-not strictly meaning 5 years, a regular change is a risk, which may bring unpredictable harm. In addition, in my point of view, if we want to bring revitalization to a company, changing leader is not the only means. We can employ new consultant, employ new employee into every department, which may also reach the goal.




论点有力，但逻辑组织上有点问题
用语有点口语化或者chinenglish，有些不符合外国人的写句子的习惯。
建议多看看英文原版杂志，培养语感。
有小语法错误。


继续加油啦