练AI写作,请大家指教: A2: Constant innovation and change within anorganization are as lik

sk999

There has been a growing concern about whether constant innovation and change have same likelihood to do the same harm and good to an organiztion. Attitute towards this statement varies from person to person. Some persons say that change is harmful to a company, while other believe that innovation is good for an enterprise. As far as I am concerned, I think that change benefit more than harm organizations because only innovation will help corporations adapt to rapid change, attract talented people and maintain their competitive abilities .

First, change and innovation are the mere way for companies to remain competitive and avoid failure in the contest. Times change so quickly that if companies do not keep up with the trend of development, they will be less likely to compete with their rivals no matter how successful they were. This often leads to the failure of companies in some fields or as a whole. So, companies have no other choices but changing to meet the varying customer’s need. Just as an famous saying in fashion industry, “you know the drill, one day you are in, the next day you are out”. Such is the case in not only fashion industry but also other industries. In the past, IBM was the most successful personal computer company. But without perceiving the opportunity to transform personal computer, IBM lost the rivarly in this field. IBM’s failure in this field contributed a great deal to the success of Microsoft and Intel. In a peroid of fierce competition, even companies try their best,they can not make sure whether they keep the pace of developmet, not to mention do nothing. In face of such fierce compeition, talented staff is essential to companies.

Second, innovative companies are more likely to attract talented people by providing flexible work system, counteless new ideas and great financial rewards because they fully realize the worth of talent.Under such circustances,  employee like to bring their talents to the full play and put their knowledge and energy into effect. In turn, the good jobs of the staff help companies achieve success. A good circle results. Successful enterprises are always the companies that are good at attracting talented people. On the contrary, when the companies are satisfied with their current situation and do not like to change, they will lose their talents employee and in the end be surpassed by their competitors. History is replete with such examples. Steve jobs is an excellent manager. When Apple tried its best to innovate, Steve jobs got support from the company and helped the company win rivalry. But when Apple was satisfied with its advantages, Jobs always left company. As a result, every time after Jobs left Apple, Apple would encouter difficult times. Sometimes Apple was on the edge of bankruptcy. Such things happened three times.  From this case, we can see that it is more difficult to  maintain a company’s competitive ability.

Third, no one can deny the significance of competitive abilities. In face of adversity, a company is easy to realize the important of competition and innovation. However, when it is successful, it always ignores the importance of  keeping their competitive abilities. Keeping companies, especially successful companies , competitive is a big challenge to management. If they can’t solve the problem properly, successful companies will fail in the end. Change is a good way to work out solutions to the challenge. Change can add new blood to a company ,have a catfish effect on employee ,bring sense of crisis to the staff and make people aware of necessity of competition. That is why the reason that Bill Gates quits his job. Although he is very successful in his position, he knows it is better for Microsoft to have a new CEO.  

To sum up,  for the preceding reasons, we can draw a conclusion that change and innovation benefit rather than harm a company. It helps companies achieve success, attract talents employee and keep their competitive abilities.

marylamb

很好！

eshopaholic

However, his successor has proved incompetent, at least not comparable to Bill Gates himself.