领导者
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." Position: Limiting the term of leadership is an effective way to prevent corruption and lack of initiatives.
A. When leaders have no fear of losing their power, they tend to abuse their power.
B. A new leadership usually has greater initiative and would bring in new ideas.
C. However, in private areas such as business it might not be so necessary to limit the term of leadership.
1.though creativity is emphasized ubiquitously in study, business, research, and thought, we should adopt is selectively.
2.new things always have many rejections in its application, and is not always on the right track. In the transformation of the leadership, efficiency of the enterprises will surely deteriorate and profit will decrease. It is a big challenge for any enterprises. In case the transform fails, it is disastrous to the enterprise.
3.if such trend permeate in the society, there are bound to be irretrievable loss and destruction.
4.we should adopt the creativity selectively, tailoring it to our flavor and condition.
Position: The surest way to success for all enterprises should be anaylized respectively instead of just considering the revitalization of leadership as the only channel.
1, Leaders in power in various fields have their strongs and wesknesses. Those who accumulate experience and prosper and even gain public suppot or those who benefit the society in their utmost, deserve respect and promotion.
2, The success of an enterprise is decided by many factors such as economical environment, political stability and international relationships.
3, Although an revitalization of leadership does bring some benefits , it is only one , not necessarily right , channel.
4, From a broad point of view, we can reasonably plan for the future and success of an enterprise.
(1)to great existence, if one cannot see the concrete example that the aging and ossifying leadship will undermine the profession patently and greatly, one can deduce i t from the general principle. for example. so some thing shoule be done, some rule institute, some example set.
(2)but new leadship not mean to permute the preceding wholely, beside supplant the original one there are still divergent approach to attain such goal,such as . on the other hand, why it must 5 years that the origin one have to step down? longer or shorter? how about 8 or 10
(3) and remaim the preceding leadship can conserve the stable in the main policy and the sequence. it will disturb the proper rhymer, and it would demand more or less quite a long time to put all the worlk in the right place.
(4)according all the outline it is immeience to remedy and prevent the leadship ossify and age, but we can adop a more moderate way.
Position:
1. Those in power for several years are generally old and their physical conditions become worse and worse. It's unwise to be still in power if they are likely less capable to deal with mass of matters.
2. Another problem also should be considered: young and talent people who are excellent enough to fit the position don't have the opportunities to make achievements if the old are still rooted.
3. However, power men have much more experience than those young. They often represent their surprisingly wise and diplomatic capabilities when dealing with tough problems, which rare happens on young men.
4. The credit, repute and public support are also considerable factors. New leadership are less experienced and need a comparative long period to be adapted to the society.
1. beginning
2.1 a person in a position too long will either get tired of his work, or make misdeed. Need new one bring vigor into the profession. absolute power leads to absolute depravation
2.2 give change to those who are more compatible for the job.
2.3 period for tenure of the office should take discretion.
3. to get a better result, it is better to let leaders abdicate.
Protean as the world represents and situation changes continuously, after a relative stable period, leaders should abdicate and new one is required to supple the vacant position.
Protean as the world represents and situation changes continuously, after a relative stable period, leaders should abdicate and new one is required to supple the vacant position.
When one is appointed to a new department, ambitious and aggressive as he/she is, the ardour fills in heart of the one’s, earnest he/she will be and the spirit will infect others. Thus, a benign vogue is formed which boost the group to go in an exiting cycle. With the zeal vanishing, as the leader is too familiar with his/her work and with the different types relationship built, it is hard to keep disinterest for the leader. Inevitable, discontent will come out and internal contradictory will emerge thus efficiency will descend. The result what I have stated is just refer to those who are decent, for leaders
who can’t deny snare situation will be more serious. A famous aphorism that absolute power leads to absolute depravation repeals shortness of leaders staying long in a profession from this aspect.
Meanwhile, even the leader keeps rectitude and he/she was competent with his occupation, however, if the leader stays in the profession infinitely, other one who in the beginning years was not as excellent as the leader, in the later years has been keeping on trying and now is more suitable for the position has no chance to be promote. It is not equal for the more diligent person and also contradicts Market economic laws which require optimize allocation of resource, including labor resource. In the antithesis, if the leader can assume more important assignment, and if he/she is confined in the limited circle, also it is a waste of gifts of the leader and it is unfair for him/her.
To reach the most effective for all the member of society and make full use of resource, leaders should abdicate when expiration of his/her term in office falls according to relevant laws that corresponding economic rules. Length of the period for the leader in the position should be decided in concrete circumstance, arbitrarily circumscribe it to 5 years will court trouble in the later years, some such as manager of a small company should be substituted in less than 5 years while the presidential election should be hold 4 years a time at least to ensure stability of the country.
Definitely, system of leader replacement should be built and advantages of it are obvious. Only through this form, can all people enjoy equal citizen right and the society can create the most value. Thus, keeping on executing this policy in any profession—business, politics, education, government—is impeachable and rational.
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.
Unfortunate but true, there is no individual of this world flawless. Great success, fame and wealth, awe and respection from subordinates can all addle an initially wise and
cool-minded leader. The availability of long-term leadership makes things worse by granting these leaders sufficient time and power to abuse success. And the veneration and admiration from staff fail to warn leaders against self-righteousness before the whole thing goes out of control. Though sometimes things are not that bad, and the long-term leadership does to some extent manage to keep the enterprise in stability, it does not follow that the enterprise benefits from it anyway. Actually, the so-called stability is a veiled rigidity, which dominates with the inevitable limitation of its leader. Things are quite different when periodic leadership is introduced. By maintaining proper competative mechanism, the enterprise is always able to be repleted with fresh blood and new leading ideologies. Newly emerged leaders bring new way of leading and managing, and they are more likely to keep in better touch with time as well. In order to gain recognition and authority, new leaders tend to avoid the shortcomings of their predecessors and bring more welfare to staffs. On the other hand, staffs are also encouraged to work more actively for promotion. This compulsory shift in leadership effectively invigorates the enterprise and consequently drives it for bigger success.
Five years’s period is proper for average leadership. Longer term will ossify the enterprise while shorter one may call it under instability. It takes time for new leaders to get familiar with position as well as the running of the enterprise, and their new ideas might not take effect as soon as employed. And the competition for leadership, if carried out too frequently, will also distract the enterprise from its routine jobs. It is hard to imagine that promising staffs can concentrate on their work for the enterprise rather than go all out for courting support from subordinates and appreciation from senirors. Anyway, enterprises differenciate from each other in nature and it is absurd to set an inflexible term to everyone of them categorically. The decision factors should include the average time for any new policy to take effect, evolution of the enterprise in society and so forth.
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 should work out proper term for leadership to ensure their success.
------------------------------