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."
the speaker claims that the surest methods for any enterprise is to revitalize through new leadership, and concludes that those in power should step dowm after five years in any profession--business, politics, education, government. I concede that new leader may instill fresh blood or impugn on old frozen ,system to some extent in certain businee, While I find as well asthis statement problematic in three respects. First,the speaker fails to define the success in different areas. second, he or she assumes that replacing leader is the best method to success for any business by overlooking other crucial factors which may result in success. third, the speaker's subjectively setting five- year period as leader's service time has little to do with the success of any business.
At first blush, the speaker's claim might appear to have considerable merits. After all, leaders, to a great extent, influence the direction or development of a business.While the speaker fails to provide a clear litmus test for measuring the success. When we speak of " success", the following aims come in mind: say in politics or government, to build, maintain, and expand the wealth, prosperity and political influence of his nation,district, state, country or whatever. in business, to maximize profit, keep investors, employees and business partners. In education, to ensure each children educated, lift the education level of citizenry and of education system, foster a variety of necessary qualified human resources for socirty.
Next, I concede that some new leader, with brand new ideas and concept, might incite revolution of traditional management and methods adopted in certain enterprises which could bring turnaround for business at stake. one telling example involves in industrial business, Jack Welch, who transformed what was an old-line American industrial giant into a keenly competitive global growth engine. in This case, as leader, Welch lead GE to reach a new summit. However, GE's success is hardly Welch's alone--sheer force of personalityl unbridled passion for winning business and a keen attention to details etc., also attributable to his predecessors' outstanding endeavors and the huge appliance operation system. As a result, we must be careful not hastily to assume that just changing leader could bring accomplishments into fruition.
Concerning politics or government, insofar as by way of fairly civil voting for leader, say a challenging one, might be possible to bring hopes or desires of people--safety and security, public health and individual freedom, cultural richness and overall comfort- into reality, a so-called success, otherwise it may inevitably result in disaster. In America history, the President Franklin D. Roosevelt, installed in 1932, turned back american economic slump, call on congress to allocate budget in order for anti-Nazism, and created an unprecedented prosperity in 1930's. While one contrary example involves a despotic politics, the Third Reich, in a tyrannical rule of Adolf Hilter, replaced his predecessor successfully, made its populace live in panic, even flow out of their native country, all of which destinated the fall of the Third Empire. The two example aptly illustrate that not each leader could bring success for its business, and that a case by case analysis is needed for examination.
Finally as for the third problem, the speaker unfairly sets a service time for any leader in any business. In my opinion, the leader could continue his or her tenure as long as he can keep competitive capacity and bring success for his or her service field. Go on with the examples mentioned above, Jack Welch took his position for CEO almost for 17 years, and President Franklin D Roosevelt was elected successively for 3 times, that is 12 years. While, Adolf Hilter, only was in his position for years. this service time qualification of this statement, therefore, without any basis, is unjustifiable, especially considering qualified leaders.
In sum, by failing to definite SUCCESS, the speaker unfairly assumes to change leader is the surest way to ensure success in any business and set a tenure for any leader. However, even some new chieftain could bring new ideas for business, the success of business can as well as be attributable not only to leader alone but also to other people or other factors. More over, to permit competitive leader continue his tenure is justifable as long as he could bring success of his business into reality.
well, I envy your ability of exactly expressing your ideas and a master of the language as a native English speaker.
However, if you don't mind, I think you should shift your style from that reflected from this essay to a new one, I mean, you have treated essay problems as argument problems. hehe ~