View Full Version : Help! 7 days left. Please Rate my Issue.

09-01-2010, 08:51 AM
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.

“Change” is the key word the whole society is experiencing nowadays. Technology development, dynamics of social structure, improvement of way of living... Maybe revitalization of leadership in professional fields is to adapt to all the changes before it gets too late. Or maybe it is a prevention for leaders to stay too long to allow all pursuits and provisions being eroded. Either may be the reason for changing leaders to be a path to success. But what is sure is that this is not a “surest” path in face of the uncertainties brought by new leaders.

In the first place, it is actually not difficult to see that even old leaders are doing a good job. In most, if not all, governments and well-known companies in the world, the chief leaders are always full of experience. Taking Apple for example. As a cofounder of Apple, Steve Jobs has been leading his company for decades, achieving a great success. What is more interesting is that there was a period of time in 1980s and 90s when Steve was not in the company and the company was clearly heading a down road. However, when Steve was hired back to the company, with the introducing of Ipod, the Apple company has achieved a series of success, leading its way to nowadays glory. This dramatic change in leadership actually shows that sometimes change of leader does not necessarily produce a good result. There are people simply irreplaceable.

On the other hand, however, success leaded by revitalization happens every day. Companies keeps recruiting new blood every year. The youth gets promoted to take over the position used to belong to the old. Injecting new blood is vital for all organizations, as it revives the liveliness of governments or companies. So is with new leaders. When financial crisis hit the market, new CEOs were hired for some problematic banks to restore the confidence of people. They would always bring about a series of changes in culture, regulations and ways of doing things that would eventually change the old troublesome nature of the organizations and restore its competence.

Certainly, new leaders are not always related to success, as the Apple’s example has shown us. Facing the uncertain results produced by appointing new leaders, it is human nature to stay with the old if they are still performing well. The logic is simple: would I fire Steve Jobs just because he has been the CEO of the company for more than ten years given his prevision in introducing Ipod, Iphone, etc. and individual charisma. Of course not. It is one simple strategy in the world of competition that only when the existing solution no longer produces competitive result, would I choose to adopt a new one; if the current solution is working well, why would I take the risk of adopting a new solution that might produce a worse result. Hence, a new leadership is surly not the “surest path to success”.

In conclusion, though new blood is vital for the liveliness of any organization, sometimes leadership is not replaceable. In most cases, changing leader is always the last choice in a worst scenario.

09-07-2010, 03:22 PM
What you think is same as I think:)

I think your issue very good. Good luck!