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."
DATE: 2008-8-2 17:18:18
提綱：
有保留同意
Body Paragraph:
1. 更新領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者來保持活力
i. 長期處于權(quán)力高峰容易獨(dú)斷/腐化。
ii. 新鮮觀點(diǎn)與方法注入
2. 5年是個(gè)不錯(cuò)的period : 太短不穩(wěn)定，太長沒效果。
3. Neverthelss
i. 不一定非要5年
ii. 特殊行業(yè)需要保持穩(wěn)定：Greenspan 20
In general, I agree with the author that the man in power should be changed regularly. It's crucial to keep the enterprise or government fresh. People may believe that a great leader should be at the position as long as possible to benefit the organization, yet this is not always the case, as discussed followed.
One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to keep the organization running normally, the leader cannot be always the same. People who are always at the peak of power will easily be arbitrary, or even corrupted. Although this view might seem pessimistic, this is the truth. Since they are always full of power; and few things can restrict them. They will get used to ordering without discussing with others. After a long time, they may forget how to ask others' opinion or how to compromise. Moreover, a man, no matter how great he is, has his own shortage in view. Thus we need some more thoughts and methods to be entered. This can be easily accomplished by changing the leader regularly. Consider the example of Chairman Mao. No one will doubt he is one of the greatest leaders we have ever seen. However, he made a serious mistake in his later time. In contrast, George Washington retired after being the president of U.S. for eight years. History proves his decision was correct.
Another reason why I agree with the claim is that five years is an excellent period. As discussed earlier, we change the leadership mainly in order to revitalize. Thus, if the period is too long, the enterprise may already have been lack of vitality; and the effect will not be so good. On the other side, if the leadership is changed too frequently, for example, one year, it is obviously that the relationship altered too rapidly to become a good workplace. All people are busily becoming familiar with the new environment. Therefore five years is a good balance for the two sides.
We have recognized that the movement of leadership every five years is beneficial; nevertheless it should not be obeyed without exception. First of all, besides five years, other time period may also be reasonable. Consider the example of the U.S. presidential election. As it is known to all, it is held every four years, and each president can hold his or her position for at most eight years. And I think this is also a significantly good system, for it ensures the vitality in American politics while encourages the excellent governor to prevail their idea. Furthermore, in certain situation the leader can be stable, as it did in the case of Alan Greenspan, the 13th Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who has been in the office for about 20 years. When there are only few people competent for the job, or the policy made should keep steady, it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for the leaders remain unchanged.
In sum, to guarantee success, any organization should revitalize through new leadership. Admittedly an alternation for every five years is a good idea; other reasonable methods can also lead to success. Yet this is not the golden rule and can be invalid in some special occasion.