As a frequently discussed issue in the enterprise,the abdication of elder leader and subsequently accession of new bellwether have been an spiny problem and thus give rise of an enduring debate. Which viewpoint should we hold out? Answer of this question depends on our overall and reasonble analysis and understanding in this issue. That is, if the old leader should resign and let the new bellwether take the post thoroughly rely on the definite situation that happens. That is,the different condition may give birth to fully disparate and even opposite result. I will provide the concrete and detailed analysis as the following.
On the one hand,we first should pay attention to the possible benefit from the abdication of old leader. For instance,the accession of new leader instead of old may brings new idea ,spirit,method and regulation ,which subsequently mybe contribute to the development and pefection of the enterprise. For instance, many famous company ,such as IBM,MICROSOFT,and INTEL,ever got into the plight due to mismanagement ,or corruption,or erroneous policy. These corporation finally replace the leader with the new bellwether in order to get rid of the quandary and revive. As a result,mostly the company make a resurgence and even burgeon for a long time, which
primarily result from the fresh and correct idea , system and practice brought by new leader. Therefore,from these cases,we naturally get a illumination that in a troublesome and even formidable situation,appointing a new leader may be a reasonble and effectual measure for reviving the enterprise.
On the other hand,as a complement,we must consider if the so-called reform by
substituting old for new leader is certainly beneficial to the enterprise. In some cases,the plight of enterprise is not brought out by the leader,but some other factors. For instance, the government formulate a new economic policy which involves the product made by a company and contains some new terms disadvantageous to that company. Thus,for a long time,the sale of product is so
bad that gradually the enterprise falls into a predicament.So,how can we ascribe this to the leader? in turn,we all should realize it is not the responsibility of leader,but just a chance. In this situation,substituting the leader for new person
may be not a reasonble and effctual measure since it can't overcome the difficulty caused by the government. Besides this,other possibility may influence on the development of enterprise and sometimes lead to a predicament.
Through the detailed and objective analysis presented above,we here can make a conclusion that replacing the old leader with new is not always a suitable
and efficient measure for reviving the enterprise,which commonly depends on specific condition and situation.
We are enjoying a very bright future as fast advancing technology centers in a world in which society calling out increasingly loudly for change and creativity. Transmutation is valued more heavily than it has ever been. Affected by the beneficial change of the technology, people are applying change ubiquitously to thoughts, science, education and even leadership. While admitting that the urge for change is conducive to everything, I don’t think people’s extreme and indiscriminate application in leadership, demanding those in power should step down after five years, is not as wise and advisable as they do in science, though or education.
The reason contribute to people’s appeal to require anyone in power step down after five years is their presupposition that frequent change in leadership can bring the enterprise the precious merit: creativity. Creativity by nature means, the creative mind which can free our though from the trammel of tradition and bring refreshment to our ideas. However, it doesn’t follow that frequent change in anything—leadership included—is necessary and an insurance of creativity. Furthermore, creativity alone in itself is not sufficient and predominant in an efficient and outstanding leadership. There are other elements say clairvoyance, wisdom, persistence, honesty, morality which are more important, or at least as important as creativity. If too frequent the change of leadership was and too much emphasize laid upon creativity, the essences that listed above would be largely lost and the leadership centers in creativity would be surly in
unsteadiness. And what’s more, can anyone argue seriously that the change in leadership will definitely bring the enterprise a creative mind?
Further put, new things always have many rejections in its germinal application and are not always on the right track. Leadership is not the abnormality. In the transformation of the leadership, efficiency of the enterprises will be inevitably impaired and profit will decrease. In case the transform fails, it is disastrous and detrimental to the existence and development of the enterprise.
The end of the so-called frequent change and urge for revitalization is to pursue the prosperity of the enterprise. On condition that the extant leadership has contributed and is going to contribute more to the enterprise’s prosperous development, where does the motive of change in leadership exist? Roosevelt, the 16th president of the U.S and the only one in history elected for 4 terms, can serve as the solid example to substantiate the point above. Why people granted him 4 four times of presidency, spanning 12 year that absolutely surpass the five years alleged by many people? Let’s get to fundamentals to see what he has done in his presidency: developed reforms and projects known as the New Deal which drag Americans out of the bog of economic recession; lead Americans to conquer the notorious fascism in the Second World War. It is due to his sagacious leadership that Americans granted him 4 four times of presidency and venerated him as the 3rd greatest president in history, ranking only after Washington and Lincoln. From this illustration we can see the traditional perspective of valuing the leadership is by its efficiency and contribution, not merely the presumably frequency alleged by many people.
In conclusion, the allege of people in leadership nowadays and indiscriminate change of leaders is preposterous and precarious to not only the enterprise but the society as a whole. The change for leadership should be evaluated comprehensively, including efficiency and contributions and wisdom and clairvoyance, not narrowly circumscribed in the so-called and alleged revitalization of creativity.
Agree:
1. long-term leadership will lead to arrogance of the leader and rigidity of enterprise
2. by introducting periodic leadership and proper competitive mechanism, the enterprise can keep running lively
3. over-frequent changing of leader will distract the enterprise and bring instability It’s emotionally natural that people incline to sticking to a successful and charismatic leader rather than to mercilessly replace him/her with a new one after a limited period of time. It turns out that, however, such good wishes do not promise precipitated results. Long-term leadership often leads to either the degrade of the enterprise or degeneration of the leader itself.