搜索
查看: 144|回复: 0

[作文] GRE issue 领导要不要在五年后退位 新手求拍

[复制链接]
发表于 2019-6-2 20:21:34 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
题目
Claim: In any field — business, politics, education, government — those inpower should step down after five years.
Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalizationthrough new leadership.

本人拙作
The speaker contends that leaders in any field shouldstep down after five years as revitalization through new leadership is acertain path for an enterprise to success. Admittedly, rotation of leaders canbring some benefits to an enterprise in some fields, but in other fields, thismay not be the case. Besides, the success of the enterprise could not beassured simply by the rotation of leader. More issues should be taken intoaccount.

The statement is true in some cases. It is known to usall that every American president could be in position for four years before are-election and presidents could only serve two consecutive terms, which meansthe maximum presidency term for any American president would be eight years,after which they have to retire and a new president would be chosen. It is alsoapplicable in the business world. Many countries in the world have such aregulation stipulating that chief executive officer (CEO) and chairman, ifthere is one, could only sit for some certain years. There are several reasonssupporting these rules. Firstly, possible centralization and personalization ofpower could occur if one takes charges for too long a time. Secondly, as thesocietal and economic situations are continuingly changing, it is reasonablefor leadership style to change accordingly, so select a more suitable leader atsome period of time is indispensable. In addition, a new leader is often ableto bring some new ideas, which might contribute to an enterprise’ success.


However, some problems of rotation could not be ignored.Firstly, it is possible that short-termism would exist so that the leaders onlyfocus on the performance within his tenure, which may lead to long-termbenefits being sacrificed. More seriously, the leader may not work hard at allif he thinks he would have to step down willy-nilly. Secondly, changes couldlead to instability within the enterprise because, for example, subordinateswould need time to get accustom to the new leader’s styles. This wouldundermine the development of the enterprise.


I agree that leaders should step down after severalyears, but the mechanism should be carefully designed. Firstly, it is advisablethat leaders be selected by the public, or the board of directors, depending onthe nature of the enterprise. Selection could to some extent prevent the formerleaders from underperforming as he would tend to win people’s trust and stay inposition for a longer time. What’s more, it could ensure that a well-equippedand appropriate leader would be chosen to lead the enterprise. Secondly, theterm limit should vary from enterprise to enterprise. It may be suitable forgovernment head to step down after four or five years, but in some fields suchas schools, this may not be necessary. Also, succession planning should beundertaken in advance to enable a smooth transition.


To sum up, I agree with the statement insofar as leadersshould rotate after a period of time. However, I believe that the time couldnot be determined so arbitrarily and some rules should be in place to ensure thesuccess of the rotation system.

希望各路大神各位好心人帮忙提提意见。谢谢大家!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|Archiver|ChaseDream ( 京ICP证101109号 )

GMT+8, 2019-6-16 10:46 , Processed in 0.150046 second(s), 6 queries , Memcache On.

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2019 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部